Jammie Thomas Denied Supreme Court Appeal

sarysa writes "The Supreme Court has refused to hear the latest appeal of the 7 year old Jammie Thomas case, regarding a single mother who was fined $222,000 in her most recent appeal for illegally sharing 24 songs. Those of us hoping for an Eighth Amendment battle over this issue will not be seeing it anytime soon. In spite of the harsh penalties, the journalist suggests that: 'Still, the RIAA is sensitive about how it looks if they impoverish a woman of modest means. Look for them to ask her for far less than the $222,000.'"

Comments

$24

[schlachter]

How about they ask her for $24.
Seems pretty reasonable.
Would still deter people from sharing thousands of songs.

Re:$24

[sqrt(2)]

Or we can, as a society, reject the notion that non-commercial file sharing should be a crime at all and take back our collective cultural birthright from the parasitic rent-seeking content cartels and their toadies in Congress.

Re:$24

[fyngyrz]

ok, how?

Re:$24

[anagama]

$24? Are you nuts? In the Federal Courts, you can expect only the harshest outcome unless you are fabulously wealthy and connected. I know Jamie wasn't the perfect defendant here (didn't she lie about hard drives or something?), so it is easy to kind of say she deserves it, or to at least feel no sympathy, but it is unsympathetic defendants that make bad or unjust law. It is sort of shocking that the same administration which has absolutely sat on its hands (*) about $gazilions of Wall Street fraud, encouraged the Supreme Court to reject the case. Justice for some, and especially good justice when you can purchase laws you want, or in the case of Wall Street, inverse justice (rewards for crime, cabinet positions). The little guy can just have his or her life utterly destroyed. That's the Feds.

(*) William K Black is worth reading on the issue because he headed up the litigation team that put 1000 banksters in jail in the S&L crisis -- a crisis 1/40th the size of the meltdown.

Re:$24

[Fluffeh]

cultural birthright from the parasitic rent-seeking content cartels

I can't agree with this. You can't tell me that the latest boy band single that comes out is your birthright. It is a paradoxically impossible question. If you put the punishment for copyright infrigement at a "reasonable" amount - say, 10 times the price of the CD/whatever it comes on, then it costs more to chase the punishment than it does to get it back. If you put the punishment at a level where it potentially becomes financially feasible for the copyright owner to chase it down, then it is an asinine figure for the actual infringement.

The only solution that I see is for the media companies to make their products so accessible that it is simply no longer WORTH bothering to download it illegally, but the problem is that the folks who put torrents or downloads online do such a damn good job that is makes competing with them very difficult.

Re:$24

[thunderclap]

a 9.0 magnitude earthquake should solve the problem quickly.
OK that was wrong, but seriously the only solution is using the internet against them like we are doing. There is no other way that doesn't shed blood.

Re:$24

[thunderclap]

People are willing to pay for a good product even when offered for free. The problem is the industry has produced any. UK pays for TV so can you name 2 shows you would be willing to pay say $5 a month for? Its all about control. they are losing it and the masses have it.

Re:$24

[jxander]

Therein, as the bard would tell us, lies the rub

If there was an easy way to enforce our rights, we would have done it by now. Best we've been able to muster is OWS.

If there was a hard, but otherwise legal and achievable way to enforce our rights, we'd be marching down that path. Best we've been able to muster is some noise on various websites

.

Have you ever been pissed off at a loved one (boyfriend, girlfriend, spouse, etc) ... and it was over the most trivial stupid inane thing? They left the cap off the toothpaste, or the didn't match the socks properly when doing laundry... maybe left the seat up, or parked the car a bit crooked... whatever. And it escalated into full scale yelling and arguing? I have the strange suspicion that the same thing will be happening on a much larger scale soon. Maybe it'll be file-sharing issues like this, or smart phone lockdown, DMCA, DRM or some other thing that just really should not matter on a big scale, and let the fireworks commence.

Re:$24

[mlw4428]

The problem is the industry has produced any.

That's called an opinion. There are, undoubtedly, many people who like the music/movies/etc produced by major labels today. They pay for it. You don't inherently have a right to something I produce or create just as I don't have the right to your house, car, wife, or daughter. I do believe in ownership and I believe that a company can charge whatever the hell it wants for its product. I don't believe in massive fines for people who truly can't afford it. Community service, minimal fines, house arrest, and probation are ways to deal with this. Make someone's life inconvenient and a pain in the ass for a while and they're not likely to do it again. But you don't have the right to just take what I spent my time, money, talent, and passion.

Re:$24

[Fluffeh]

can you name 2 shows you would be willing to pay say $5 a month for

That's my point, not a month, but either per episode or per season - and yes.

Off the top of my head: Archer, Dexter, Walking Dead, Falling Skies, Revolution, Game of Thrones, Castle, American Horror Story, Big Bang Theory.

If I could download a decent quality (doesn't have to be super duper 1080p or anything like that) at the time it comes out and without a plethora of ads in it for $1 per episode, or get access to the whole season for say $15 or $20, I would gladly do so. Makes it easy for me to watch what I want to, and at the same time I can be smug in knowing that my money is supporting the shows that I like. It is a total WIN-WIN scenario.

Its all about control. they are losing it and the masses have it.

Absolutely. The problem is that the only way that they can wrest control back from the masses is to *at least* provide the same thing that they do. Make it even better, and the masses will give them control back.

Re:$24

[jedidiah]

The two propositions aren't mutually exclusive. File sharing could still be a crime. It could just have a punishment to actually fit the offense. The real problem here is how extremely cruel and unusual the "punishment" is.

If she was getting hit for an amount comparable to shoplifting, this verdict wouldn't seem like such a crime.

Tort reform for the rich, crime and punishment for the poor.

Re:$24

[Anonymous Coward]

The claim of rent seeking is laughable given that you're basically demanding that culture creators work for free for your benefit.

Re:$24

[jedidiah]

> You can't tell me that the latest boy band single that comes out is your birthright.

Sure I can. That's the real purpose for copyright. The fact that you dishonestly cloud the issue by focusing on an example that's easy to deride does not really alter that fact.

The whole goal of the system is to enable "piracy". It's not intended to create a new form of "property".

Re:$24

[fyngyrz]

Well, not to put too fine a point on it, but it doesn't seem to be working.

Re:$24

[Fluffeh]

I think you just made me enter an infinite loop of trying to work out whether you are serious or whether you are being sarcastic.

Thank you Poe's Law. Thank you very much.

Re:$24

[Pseudonym]

UK pays for TV so can you name 2 shows you would be willing to pay say $5 a month for?

I can name five that I'd pay $10-12 a month to a single biller for.

However, those shows are on different services, which only allow overpriced large bundles of crap I don't want. Oh, and some of those services aren't available in my country. Pirates do provide the service that I would happily pay for, but I don't patronise them.

Re:$24

[mattventura]

Here's the problem. There ARE supposed to be punishments are are strong enough to deter people from committing the crime, but those are punishments, not reimbursement. If I steal money from someone, I would generally be expected to pay back what I stole and then serve jail time as a punishment. Does the victim benefit from me being in jail? No (apart from the fact that there's one less thief on the streets). If you let media corporations sue for such huge amounts of money that it becomes beneficial to them for people to commit crimes against them, they have no motivation to actually prevent the crime in the first place. You know something's wrong when the victim of the crime comes out significantly better off than they were before.

Re:$24

[girlintraining]

I can't agree with this. You can't tell me that the latest boy band single that comes out is your birthright. It is a paradoxically impossible question

No, it isn't a paradox, it's just misunderstood. The OP was clearly going for emotional appeal at the expense of clarity. Birthright may be a strong word, however, consider that most of a society's culture is defined by its art. Our popular media -- television, radio, movies, books, etc., are not just consumables like tomatoes, cars, or mobile phones. They also are part of the foundation of our definition of self, and our relation to the larger society. One could even argue that participation in our culture requires access to these artistic expressions. The President of this country recently joked that his detractors were trying to use a "jedi mind meld trick", and while the juxtaposition of two geek cultural icons caused many to cringe, the real point here is -- without having seen either of those creative works, you'd have no context upon which to understand what the President was saying.

So it may not be a "birthright" per-se, but it does seem to be essential to be able to participate in our society. Without access, you are an outsider. You're not a "real" american, in the same way people who immigrate to this country and screw up speaking idioms or fail to catch "inside" jokes and references wind up being on the wrong side of the glass.

If you put the punishment for copyright infrigement at a "reasonable" amount - say, 10 times the price of the CD/whatever it comes on, then it costs more to chase the punishment than it does to get it back. If you put the punishment at a level where it potentially becomes financially feasible for the copyright owner to chase it down, then it is an asinine figure for the actual infringement.

There is no obligation in our justice system that punishment be "financially feasible". Our justice system is supposed to be fair, impartial, and reasonable. This financial feasibility test exists nowhere but in the minds of exploitative industry executives. We have to look at things as they affect society as a whole, not a tiny minority and ask ourselves which public policy serves the greatest good? I do not think you will find very many people at all who think suing an impoverished mother for hundreds of thousands to millions of dollars, with the end result being to impoverish her further and reduce her quality of life in a dramatic fashion, in order to justify a propaganda war enacted by industry executives who will never fear hunger, sickness, or poverty, to be the greatest possible good. However, I welcome you to attempt to advance such an argument.

The only solution that I see is for the media companies to make their products so accessible that it is simply no longer WORTH bothering to download it illegally, but the problem is that the folks who put torrents or downloads online do such a damn good job that is makes competing with them very difficult.

Study after study have shown that pirates are the largest consumers of these products. They may download thousands of files, but they also spend hundreds of dollars in legitimate sales as well. You're making a false equivocation here -- that the market for "pirated" goods mirrors that of legitimate goods. The markets serve different needs, and with different products. The incongruity is made plain by looking at the runaway success of the online streaming website Netflix, who for a small monthly fee allows realtime access to much of the same material that is pirated. Curiously, Netflix sales continue to rise while traditional distribution of things like CDs, music, etc., continue to fall. It's clear then that pirated products don't compete on an even playing field with legitimate alternative distribution formats -- but where you see a disadvantage, I see a clear market advantage. Pirated products can't compete with the simplicity and ease of access of a service like Netflix.

Re:$24

[LordLimecat]

In the meantime, since its not the justice / executive department's job to worry about business models, how do you suppose they approach the problem? Just completely ignore the existing legislation on copyright?

Re:$24

[Anonymous Coward]

That's my point, not a month, but either per episode or per season - and yes.

Off the top of my head: Archer, Dexter, Walking Dead, Falling Skies, Revolution, Game of Thrones, Castle, American Horror Story, Big Bang Theory.

If I could download a decent quality (doesn't have to be super duper 1080p or anything like that) at the time it comes out and without a plethora of ads in it for $1 per episode, or get access to the whole season for say $15 or $20, I would gladly do so. Makes it easy for me to watch what I want to, and at the same time I can be smug in knowing that my money is supporting the shows that I like. It is a total WIN-WIN scenario.

Amazon Instant has most of those shows the day after air without ads for a couple of bucks per episode.

Re:$24

[Anonymous Coward]

You can't tell me that the latest boy band single that comes out is your birthright.

The right to take culture, modify it, and release it back to the world, enriching our common cultural heritage ... that certainly can be argued to be our birthright, in which case the current copyright regime is manifestly unjust. There's a reasonable compromise in which we say that modifying and releasing previous works is a human right, but getting paid for it isn't: in which case copyright should be enforced for commercial infringement only.

Re:$24

[mrclisdue]

Well, not to put too fine a point on it, but it doesn't seem to be working.

Isn't it?

Whilst the "content-cartels" occasionally ruin the odd-person's life, hundreds of millions, if not a billion, people continue to share files, every second of every day. Young whippersnappers under 30 don't even *get* what the fuss is about (or why we even *share* (or own) music files when there's spotify, grooveshark, pandora...)

And I do think it's tragic, and despicable, that even one person is ruined by the various aa's and their/our bought-and-paid-for politicians/legislatures.

Ultimately, the few sporadic *gains* by the bad guys pale in comparison to the sheer number of those who don't feel threatened. Or who rightly believe it's an amoral issue unworthy of their attention.

It's not unlike weed use. Are the anti-weed folks winning? Sooner or later (measured in decades...) common sense does indeed prevail.

A lot of us may not live long enough to experience it, though.

cheers,

Re:$24

[Anonymous Coward]

isn't there a way for people to directly impeach the whole shit load of SC, senate, congress and the prez? This is what is needed in situations like this.

Re:$24

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

I have the strange suspicion that the same thing will be happening on a much larger scale soon. Maybe it'll be file-sharing issues like this, or smart phone lockdown, DMCA, DRM or some other thing that just really should not matter on a big scale, and let the fireworks commence.

So, you are saying Jammie Thomas should pull a Moahmed Bouazizi?

Re:$24

[AK Marc]

Young whippersnappers under 30 don't even *get* what the fuss is about (or why we even *share* (or own) music files when there's spotify, grooveshark, pandora...)

My wife is under 30 and she doesn't "get" streaming. She buys iTunes and Amazon music. I am older and stream free (and legal). She drops back to claims of playlists and such, but she doesn't have that level of memory of the music, if a few extras were slipped in, she wouldn't notice. Though she doesn't like the ones where she has to create her own playlists manually. But a 6-disc changer in the car, with 6 discs in it, and she still prefers the radio (an older free streaming service). But put it on the Internet, and she doesn't get it.

Re:$24

[ancientt]

I quit buying music albums when they were still on cassettes. The return simply wasn't worth the cost for me. I appreciate music in my life but not enough to spend much money, particularly when I was content with radio.

Then Pandora caught my attention. I enjoyed it enough that I actually paid (and have continued paying) for the upgrade. It's a small cost for getting to hear what I want and being able to get a wide variety. I don't really have to pay for those two things, but I get a slightly higher quality and no ads for the price of the upgrade, plus I'm supporting a company I want to succeed.

Recently I've begun buying albums and tracks again. I only do it on systems where I get a downloaded copy of the music that I can move to whatever device I desire. I don't have a tremendous collection by any means, but I appreciate being able to hear what I want, when I want to, and not pay for full albums when I only like one or two songs.

I am aware that I could download the same songs and albums without paying for them but generally speaking my Pandora subscription, the convenience and the quality of the download I'm able to get at the price I pay makes it worth more than the effort of attempting to do it illegally.

Even if there were no risk whatsoever, my history of purchases shows that I still pay for quality and convenience, particularly where I value the success of the company I'm dealing with.

I know that one user doesn't make the case, but thunderclap is right: Do it well and at a fair price and people like me are willing to pay even if they could get it for free.

Re:$24

[SpaceMonkies]

$200K+ for sharing 24 songs? Those profound douche-baggery. I'm so glad that newer methods are emerging to kill off the record label. This is an example of the industry that we call "The legal system", milking the life-force out of lady justice and then ripping her corpse apart and devouring it without a napkin. There's no measure of justice involved at all. Was there REALLY $222K in damage? Hell no, she helped advertise a brand, of sorts. What a disgusting farce. Glad I don't live in the states.

Re:$24

[TheCarp]

Um no, you have it entirely wrong.

People are willing to pay for a product if its offered at a price that makes them paying for the media that they consume within their budget. The problem is, the industry hasn't done that for everyone yet.

While I may share your opinion that most of their stuff is shit, the fact remains that the people who do the most non-approved downloading are, in fact, the people who couldn't afford to have so much music or watch so many movies otherwise.

So whether people will pay for the product or not is not the question, people who have money will. I don't pirate anything. However, if I go downstairs and decide to spend the next 3 days watching Pay per View movies on cable, and order the latest boyband album, it doesn't mean my wife is out on the street doing tricks so we can eat. Simply the people with the most time to sit around and do nothing are the people with the least money (I know a family where both parents became disabled and can barely get around much less do their old labor intensive jobs, they have almost no money and almost infinite time to watch movies.... guess who it is that downloads the most of all the people I know?)

In fact, just about everyone I know, including myself, who used to download movies, music, pirate video games... every single one of us did it at a time when they were broke, and stopped doing it when they got jobs and could afford the media that they consumed.... the exceptions being... the ones who don't have any money.

Frankly, when it comes down to it... people just don't care about control or any of that. Oh sure, some of us do... but even I grabbed a video license off amazon when I wanted to spend a weekend showing my cousin firefly... even if I do find the idea of "buying" something and not controling the physical media. I mean hell, ideologically I find myself allied with Stallman on most issues around the owner of computer should have a right to the code that runs on it and the right to edit it. fuck yah! .... I still spend money on games for myself, wife, and gifts to our nephew and others.... without even a glimer of hope of seeing Skyrim come under the GPL anytime soon.

Anyway yah, I get it, most of the content sucks... but lets not delude ourselves as to why its happening or what the effects are. Its, mostly a null effect, as the people who pirate didn't have the money to begin with, and the people who have the money, already bought it because its not worth it to them to take the risk, or worry about getting a virus. So the only real effect is the added exposure that things get by being seen by people who otherwise wouldn't have seen them.... except that in these cases that "otherwise" means.... like decades ago before affordable recording equipment of any kind existed...because people have been making copies for each other ever since.

Re:$24

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

You can't tell me that the latest boy band single that comes out is your birthright.

Yes, all culture is our birthright. It isn't a question of quality because that is subjective.
Who are you to say that Symphony No. 9 is better for me than the Macarena?

Re:$24

[rubycodez]

it isn't about "the latest boyband". it's saying that any song should not be allowed to be copied for the life of the author plus an additional 70 years. If the author transfers ownership or their identity is unknown the copyright will expire 95 years after publication or 120 years after creation, whichever is shorter.

it's past time to put these power and money grubbing cartel fucks into the garbage can

Re:$24

[fnj]

isn't there a way for people to directly impeach the whole shit load of SC, senate, congress and the prez? This is what is needed in situations like this.

It's called a revolution. Governments aren't supposed to be a heavy yoke oppressing the people at the behest of the privileged. WE put the government in place to serve US. The people who did that would be aghast at what we are putting up with now.

Re:$24

[Anonymous Coward]

Excuse me Fluffeh, but jedidiah wrecked your argument. It would behoove you to read and understand what he wrote.

Re:$24

[rubycodez]

The original purpose of copyright in the USA was to give sole right of reproduction and distribution for a *limited* time, after which the work became the public's (the culture's). that time period was 14 years, with an option to renew for another 14 years if the author was still around and still wished to do so. So 28 years, and then it became the common cultural property. but the system we have today is the opposite of that, to keep things from the people indefinitely. This is done by cabals of power and money grubbing scum who are robbing the people of things valauble to culture.

Re:$24

[clarkkent09]

People are willing to pay for a product if its offered at a price that makes them paying for the media that they consume within their budget. The problem is, the industry hasn't done that for everyone yet.
 
$7 per month for Amazon Prime or Netflix is a pretty good deal. Add to it advertising supported sites like hulu, pandora, crackle etc etc, not to mention 700 free "channels" on things like Roku, then there is spotify etc etc. There is plenty of content available at a VERY low price. Just because you can't get every song and every show at a price you want doesn't make it all right to pirate them.

Re:$24

[fyngyrz]

Isn't it?

No.

hundreds of millions, if not a billion, people continue to share files, every second of every day

Ongoing activity is not evidence of a "win." Look at the drug war for your benchmark. About a million and a half people are in jail over that in the US alone, the war is wrong in every way that matters, yet it continues, people continue to suffer, the jails overflow.... not a win. In the case of file sharing, the laws and the tech are getting more draconian, not less, and the harm is beginning to spread. Again look at the drug war and see the risk you're facing: Just as in the 60s we did drugs with a "so what" mentality, and then many of us (including me) got swept up and jailed, surprise, the system has teeth and they count. You think facing down the corporate interests with a "so what" mentality will win the day, I'm really afraid you're not only wrong, but wrong in a way that's going to get a lot of people hurt.

Young whippersnappers under 30 don't even *get* what the fuss is about (or why we even *share* (or own) music files when there's spotify, grooveshark, pandora...)

Yes, but again, they don't know very much about it yet, nor do they understand the potential consequences. There's a great deal of "Internet Superman" behavior -- loudmouthery and etc. -- but when it comes time to face the judge, that stuff tends to evaporate like the worthless bluster it is.

Ultimately, the few sporadic *gains* by the bad guys pale in comparison to the sheer number of those who don't feel threatened. Or who rightly believe it's an amoral issue unworthy of their attention.

Again, perfect parallel to drugs in the 60's. While we frolicked in the parks and ran naked through the woods, they were just beginning to wrap their heads around strategies that would become more and more vicious, and they've not stopped to this day. You're at the very beginning of your fight with the copyright holders, and they -- realistically now -- hold all the cards. They own the airwaves. They control the Internet. They know your IP and what you're doing with it. They have congress in their pocket. Congress effectively controls the legal system with very little interference from the judiciary (and even when they do take an interest, they usually side with the corporations and the government.)

The drug war, in the meantime, has turned prison into a for-profit enterprise; it's no longer a negative to the state to incarcerate you (and take all your stuff, ruin your life, etc.) The more, the merrier: They'll just build more prisons and use you as slave labor. So when they begin to really reap the violators -- and you may be dead certain they will -- the prison system is ready to pack you in there like sardines, no problem.

It's not unlike weed use. Are the anti-weed folks winning? Sooner or later (measured in decades...) common sense does indeed prevail. A lot of us may not live long enough to experience it, though.

Now you're beginning to get it. Weed -- only one drug, and one so harmless it's amazing -- is just barely getting traction at the state level, while the feds -- congress and etc. -- continue to maintain the most draconian stance possible. It's been over half a century, and there's been one hell of a lot of suffering just in order to attempt assert the liberty one should have to ingest what one prefers to ingest. It isn't over, and it won't be over for a while, even assuming that in the end, the old, evil men in congress die and people come to power who actually understand liberty and comprehend punishing actual wrongdoing instead of going against every frightening ghost that lives in some weak-minded mother's head and then holding a grudge in the form of creating a permanent lower class of distinctly lower opportunity and economic potential.

Re:$24

[cpt kangarooski]

You don't inherently have a right to something I produce or create

You don't inherently have a right to prohibit people from copying it, distributing it, etc. So where's that leave us?

AFAICT you can't be forced to create something, or to share it with someone else, but if you do, you don't have any right to control what they (and then, others) do with it, unless they willingly give you that right. Which they might, if there were a good enough reason to.

Community service, minimal fines, house arrest, and probation are ways to deal with this.

The state and the taxpayers should not have to shoulder the burden for the private benefit of copyright holders in the absence of a damn compelling reason otherwise. Better to just legalize much of the offending behavior and be done with it.

Re:$24

[cpt kangarooski]

I'm not the previous poster, but no, they wouldn't have to. If any authors choose not to work under those circumstances, no one would make them, just as there are no doubt many people right now who aren't creating and publishing works because they can't afford to.

Copyright is intended to maximize the public good by both encouraging the creation and publication of works that otherwise would not be created and published, and also, just as importantly, having as few, or no, restrictions on the public with regard to those works, as rapidly and fully as possible.

If a loss in quantity of works occurs, that's bad, but an increase in freedom is good. It's entirely possible for the public to be better off with fewer works but greater freedom. I can provide an example of a work that would come at too great a cost, if you can't imagine such a thing yourself.

Re:$24

[mlw4428]

"You don't inherently have a right to prohibit people from copying it, distributing it, etc. So where's that leave us? AFAICT you can't be forced to create something, or to share it with someone else, but if you do, you don't have any right to control what they (and then, others) do with it, unless they willingly give you that right. Which they might, if there were a good enough reason to."

That's entirely untrue. Do you own your home? Can I just come and take whatever I want out of your house? What's your address? I'd like your computer. How about your money...what's your credit card/debit card/bank account information? I feel like having a big juicy ribeye and you're going to pay for it. Right? Since you don't own it, right?

"The state and the taxpayers should not have to shoulder the burden for the private benefit of copyright holders in the absence of a damn compelling reason otherwise. Better to just legalize much of the offending behavior and be done with it."

I shouldn't have to shoulder the burden of a rapist who raped your mother. He didn't do anything to me, I don't care if he rapes your mom nightly. And yet there's that entire social aspect of society. Being a lawyer you sure don't seem to understand that society provides for intellectual property...which says that of which I create IS mine. To put it another way, if you build a house you created it, right? Using your logic I can just come and yank off your roof or door or property inside -- you don't have a right to prohibit me, do you? And if I share your house with other people...well that's just distributing isn't it?

I'm not arguing that the IP and patent laws of this country are stupid. But I also understand that creating shit costs money in some form or fashion and if I, as the creator, CHOOSE to surrender it for free...then that is my choice. But if I chose to say "No, this is mine until you pay for it" then you have no freaking right to take that away from me. No right whatsoever. It's like if I came in and stole your client's files and shared them with everyone around me -- I wouldn't doubt for a second you wouldn't stop until I had the maximum punishment allowed by law. Would you? If so you're a hypocrite...if not...where's your office, I'd like some dirt on a few people.

Re:$24

[Anonymous Coward]

To get you up to speed. Copyright was granted in the Constitution as a limited time dispensation to promote the arts and sciences. Corrupt and abusive influences have manipulated our legal system where "forever minus a day" has actually been stated as a legitimate interpretation of limited time. Because of this, huge amounts of work that should have entered the public domain are locked away. The problem extends beyond simple rent seeking and involves the inability to determine who actually holds copyright for works as the period of time is so long. This is the cultural destruction that results from abusive and corrupt influences being suffered to live.

Re:$24

[Anonymous Coward]

And you can't tell me that the latest boy band single that comes out is in any way promoting "the Progress of Science and useful Arts", which is essentially the purpose of the concept of copyright in the first place.

Re:$24

[betterunixthanunix]

File sharing could still be a crime. It could just have a punishment to actually fit the offense.

No punishment at all then?

The real problem here is how extremely cruel and unusual the "punishment" is.

No, the problem is that the RIAA decided that instead of adapting its business model to the reality of new technology, they would just abuse the legal system. The courts happily went along with this, and for decades our elected representatives have been giving the copyright lobbyists ever more legal handouts. Great technologies were killed early on to protect these businesses and their outdated notion of how entertainment is distributed.

Re:$24

[anagama]

I'm pretty certain you would love this debate Glenn Greenwald had with GWB's drug czar. If you want to see the drug war eviscerated in the most plain and eloquent terms possible, this is it:

http://vimeo.com/32110912

The Q&A session is definitely worth watching too as GG in no uncertain terms, but with great skill, points out that his opponent is just flat evil.

Re:$24

[brantondaveperson]

but the problem is that the folks who put torrents or downloads online do such a damn good job that is makes competing with them very difficult.

I'm really not sure that this is true anymore. If I use iTunes as an example, I can buy a track on iTunes and it will appear on all my idevices automatically. This is far more convenient than downloading a torrent, hoping its complete, and then copying the files around to the right place. Yes of course this process can be automated, and I did once go to the trouble of automating it on my own system. But the fact is that now, buying music online is a simpler process than downloading it illegally.

This isn't currently true for movies however, and there I agree with you - ethical issues notwithstanding. But for music, perhaps it's time to go back to buying it. I certainly have.

Re:$24

[Fluffeh]

Amazon Instant has most of those shows the day after air without ads for a couple of bucks per episode.

Amazon Instant Video (formerly Amazon Video On Demand) is an Internet video on demand service, only available in the United States.

Emphasis mine. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amazon_Instant_Video. Having said that, it sounds decent. Bit of a shame that they only provide the files in a format that plays on a limited number of devices:

The optional Amazon Unbox player lets users download higher-quality copies of videos. The Unbox player is compatible only with Windows XP, Windows Vista, and Windows 7. Downloaded films include a full-resolution video file and can include a lower-resolution copy for portable devices. The content can be viewed using the Amazon Unbox Video Player, Windows Media Player, a Windows Media Center Extender such as an Xbox 360, a PlaysForSure portable device. Downloaded videos may be burned to a DVD for storage purposes, but the resulting DVD will not play on a DVD player.

So yes, a step in the right direction, but as per my original comment, the P2P community is still offering a better product. Me personally, I would be happy to pay that $2 per episode to get a decent quality mkv or even mp4 and be able to store it on my server and watch it via my WD media player.

Re:$24

[FuzzNugget]

but the problem is that the folks who put torrents or downloads online do such a damn good job that is makes competing with them very difficult.

Bullshit.

Linux distros manage to *create and distribute* their wares with comparatively zero budget. Of course, they're also at precisely the opposite end of the philosophical spectrum of digital goods.

It would be trivially easy (and extremely cheap compared to physical packaging and distribution) to run torrent trackers, streaming servers and offer direct downloads with their millions (billions?) in disposable cash.

This is about ego and power. The ego of not having to admit they're wrong after the decades of work they've mistakenly invested in the wrong system. The power of being able to command anyone around with your bought-off lawmakers. This excellent comment describes the problem in perfect clarity and why nothing short of violent revolt will change things.

Re:$24

[LordLucless]

You can't tell me that the latest boy band single that comes out is your birthright.

He's not. He's saying that our culture is our birthright - which doesn't just apply to the latest boy band single, but just as equally to the Mozart of our generation. If the musical classics had been producing under a regime of perpetual copyright, it's doubtful there would be any musical classics. Performing Beethoven without a licence would now be a criminal offence.

Re:$24

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

Some musician's effort is not your "cultural birthright" any more some farmer's effort is your "stomach birthright".

Re:$24

[Mr. Slippery]

Do you own your home? Can I just come and take whatever I want out of your house?

As soon as you can copy it with affecting my use of it, sure.

Information is not things.

Re:$24

[mlw4428]

How about your client's files? You're a lawyer -- I assume you have documentation that you don't share normally. Email it to me...all of it. It won't affect your business operations. :)

Re:$24

[AK Marc]

They exchange donating it to the Public Domain for a temporary limited monopoly. To gain copyright, they must have already given it away to everyone for free.

Though, with DRM, they now get to play the game of never giving it away to anyone, and still claim full protection of law. But people like me claim that is unconstitutional, and if the law reads as such and allows such actions, then the law is invalid, and they have no copyright at all.

The only solution that I see is for the media companies to make their products so accessible that it is simply no longer WORTH bothering to download it illegally, but the problem is that the folks who put torrents or downloads online do such a damn good job that is makes competing with them very difficult.

My favorite critique of this is the Matrix comparison, where (if you buy it) it's saddled with piles of unskippable content. But if you "steal" it, it just works. The "free" product is superior to the paid product. And the makers are still confused on why they are losing...

Re:$24

[sixsixtysix]

except set a random riaa lackey on fire. i'd be fine with that.

Re:$24

[Anonymous Coward]

Wrong (or dishonest) analogies. I'll give you the correct one : If you see my house and love it so much that you decide to build the exact same house, then I should not have a birth given right to forbid you to do it.

Re:$24

[Anonymous Coward]

Sherlock. Doc Martin (but that might be an ITN series). Red Dwarf. Monty python's flying circus. BBC World News. Recent Doctor Who. If they could "remaster" Connections, etc., that'd be nice too. Hmm. New Tricks etc (the british cop procedurals just seem better. Less histrionics). And the Jeremy Brett Sherlock Holmes. Not much use for Downton Abbey though.

Re:$24

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, but she's under 30. He still wins.

Re:$24

[Anonymous Coward]

where does it end? growing up, i could record whatever tv shows i wanted, but they've now locked it all down for thr most part. surely, being a subscriber to ~85% of what comcast has to offer and netflix, i can get my own copies wherever i damn well please. they just keep tightening and tightening the screws to milk more and more out of consumers. i AM paying my share, so tell me where the damage is? just because they found additional, BONUS revenue streams (tv on dvd, various steaming licenses) doesn't mean they should able to limit what i can do. fuck them all, i say.

Re:$24

[mikeiver1]

While I agree that the content providers are out of control and that the congress is in fact just their legal arm there is still the problem that content has a cost to produce. If everyone didn't pay for it and everyone stole it then the content would dry up. I personally try my best to not purchase music and content from other than the artist. If we stop buying from the big scumbag content providers the small guys will likely flourish. I also try and buy used disks, in this way I am legal and at the same time I stick it to the man! Mike

Re:$24

[Anonymous Coward]

Make them $1, drm free, 1080p and and it's sounds about right. Only an idiot would pay more than what the physical retail release will be in a format that can't be sold, lended, or traded. Hell, maybe the number crunchers can tell the consumers how much they really get per eyeball per episode and sell it at that price, which is gonna be far less than $1.

Re:$24

[Mr. Slippery]

So, you are saying Jammie Thomas should pull a Moahmed Bouazizi?

Not directed at me, but...I wouldn't say anyone should, but someone's going to. They'll get screwed over in court by the RIAA and refuse to pay the fine, and have a shootout when the sheriff comes to seize their all their worldly possessions, or they'll get sued for rooting their phone and walk into their local Apple store with a suicide vest.

Think Aaron Swartz with more boom.

Re:$24

[Anonymous Coward]

Can I copy your music and pawn it off as my original creation? No. Can I get a generic license to do so from ASCAP/BMI? Yep (assuming you published it thru them as part of your recording contract), otherwise known as a cover. You might get usual and normal songwriter royalties, but good luck if I win a Grammy and you throw a fit that I didn't create it in the first place.

I take a pic in/at your house (with your consent), and it somehow hecomes famous? And you get bent after the fact? Expect a polite FOAD letter in far more words.

Copy does not deprive you of your work. But is an oportunity cost. Loss of opportunity is not theft. Deprivation of opportunity works well for Apple's developers, especially when they happen to create an app/service that duplicates others recently kicked from App Store.

How much harder can you make this?

Re:$24

[ArsonSmith]

exactly. What would you pay for a purely legitimate pirate bay? If they came up with some agreement and I could just start downloading as much as I want with the exact same service the pb community provides right now I'd drop $50-75 a month and drop cable. I'm one of the few that wish Netflix would charge me more so they could get more and more recent content. If they could have nearly all day 1 release movies and shows, again I'd be willing to pay 3-4x what Netflix costs me now. I pay for hulu and almost never watch it. I pay for Netflix and only watch a few things. Pirate Bay is just so much more convenient even than either.

Re:$24

[ArsonSmith]

I pay for most of those services and still typically download from Piratebay it has just become so much more convenient and it's easier to find the things you want. One Stop Shopping!!

Re:$24

[tibit]

It wasn't even called copyright. The U.S. Constitution is entirely utilitarian -- it prescribes the why, the guiding reason. Copyright as it exists now simply doesn't aid the consistutional cause at all.

Re:$24

[Anonymous Coward]

I wonder what Frank Lloyd Wright would think about that... especially, since Apple wants to copyright the 'look and feel' of their retail stores.

Re:$24

[ArsonSmith]

Do you own your home? Can I just come and take whatever I want out of your house?

Sure as long as your taking it doesn't deny me from still having it. If you want to build a house that looks exactly like mine and fill it with items exactly like the ones I have that's completely up to you. There is a difference between theft and copying. Although you seem to have taken the MAFIAA propaganda of otherwise to heart.

Re:$24

[cpt kangarooski]

Do you own your home? Can I just come and take whatever I want out of your house?

You might very well be able to. Property rights boil down to one, utterly non-sarcastic question: You and whose army?

Your natural right to own property is based on your ability to personally defend it from those who would take it from you. This isn't very useful, as there's always going to be someone stronger, and bigger, and badder, who can overpower you and take it.

So you ask for help from your neighbor; will he stand by your side and defend the things you claim as your property? Unless he is quite altruistic (uncommon), he's going to refuse unless there is some benefit in it for him, typically, that you agree to help him defend his things too. This is the beginning of the armies.

Internally, a group of people working for mutual defense will create rules that they can all agree on to hold their coalition together. But rules, like contracts, are something you only need once willing agreement has broken down. This means that some part of the group will try to enforce the rules against another part that is unwilling. And it's going to come down to force again. Sometimes this breaks groups into many pieces. Other times, there are few enough, weak enough, people that won't abide by the rules, and they can be overpowered and made to comply. The rules that the group develops will basically follow utilitarian principles, at least amongst the subset of the group that is strong enough that its opinions cannot be dismissed.

Assuming that like a lot of Slashdot users, you're an American, how did you think a bunch of people from entirely different continents came to live here? By waging a bloody and long campaign of genocide agains the previous inhabitants. The European settlers ultimately won because they were strong and the Native Americans were weak; this is all that it took to legitimize the settlers' claim to own this land. Likewise slavery; it was legal because the slavers were stronger than the slaves and those who sympathized with the slaves. It was abolished because the anti-slavery forces eventually grew strong enough to kill or otherwise impair the pro-slavery forces.

Even today, this is the unpleasant truth that underlies all property law: If you own a parcel of land, and I trespass on it, you can call the police and they will arrest me and take me away. If I resist, they'll use force. If I resist hard enough, they'll respond with yet more force until I submit, am incapacitated, or die. But suppose that instead, you own a parcel of land, I trespass on it, and I fulfill the jurisdiction's requirements for adverse possession. Now you can call the police, but I can claim that the law is on my side. We can go to court, I'll win (if I have indeed adversely possessed it), and should you attempt to use force against me, now I can be the one to call the police, etc. And if the state decides to take my land, they can use their self-granted power of eminent domain to do so, and this time I not only can't muster enough force to resist, but I can't even find a legal rule to help me; the land is theirs because I have no recourse whatsoever, not because of any other reason. And if a sufficiently powerful army moves in and conquers the land, it belongs to them, because no one is in a position to say otherwise.

Once upon a time, people used to think that the right of property came from God, or from the king or other silly things. But the truth of the matter is that it is all about force and utilitarianism, and this has been pretty well recognized for a few centuries now at least.

Copyrights work the same way: Everyone has an inherent right of free speech, and this encompasses the ability to repeat, verbatim, what someone else has just said. An author who creates and publishes a work literally has no inherent power, merely by virtue of being the original author, to stop other people from copying that work. Instead, the author is compelled for lack of any alternatives (aside fr

Re:$24

[cpt kangarooski]

You may have confused the previous poster, Mr. Slippery, with me.

Good rule of thumb: My posts that are not one-liners are usually a bit longer than that.

Re:$24

[ArsonSmith]

As complicated as pointing my download directory to dropbox? Wow difficult.

Re:$24

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

I was mostly joking - although if someone did self-immolate like that I wouldn't say one bad thing about them for doing it, I'm too much of a coward to go that far.

But, I just don't think there are enough cases that actually make it to court to get someone who feels that strongly about it. The power of these draconian laws are in their chilling effects, not their actual prosecution.

Re:$24

[brantondaveperson]

Ok. And you listen to and organise this music how?

Look, I know there are multiple pretty easy ways of copying music around, and that's fine. The point is that it is now easier to legally buy music that it is to illegally download it. Yes, I know it's really easy to download, but the argument that the record companies have made it hard to legally buy music online is incorrect as of whenever it was that itunes dropped their DRM.

Which obviously doesn't excuse them from fining people hundreds of thousands of dollars for uploading a few megs of data. That is clearly absurd, immoral, unethical, and not in the least bit funny.

Re:$24

[mlw4428]

"Although you seem to have taken the MAFIAA propaganda of otherwise to heart."

Perhaps, because I'm a small time developer. I don't employ DRM myself nor do I actively sue people who steal my work. But it is silly that you seem to take the stance that you can have free reign with my hardwork without being expected to pay me for it. If you're too poor, then you don't deserve to have it. Just as you seem to think that I don't deserve to take the stuff that you worked hard.

And yes, you have denied me something by stealing my software: my money. Otherwise you truly can't argue against me stealing your car, your wife, or burning down your house. I didn't deprive you of shelter -- you can live under a tree. I didn't deprive you of transportation -- you can walk. I just made it a whole lot more complicated.

Re:$24

[mlw4428]

Fair enough. Do you support legalizing my access to your client's files?

Re:$24

[Anonymous Coward]

... need to post around 8:20.

Re:$24

[sixsixtysix]

But if you are already paying for cable, satellite, etc, you shouldn't be considered a pirate for downloading a copy that you can store wherever, whenever.

"But there's no commercials in those "pirate" releases!", you might say. Well, am I a pirate for fast-forwarding commercials on my dvr? I don't think so. What about the commercials my box "sees" when I am not even home?! Should I not me recompensed for that? Is the technology still too stupid to not realize when the TV is on? Sounds like their problem to me. ;P

I am certainly not going to pay additionally for something I already received through my subscription. It was fine and dandy with vhs-for-hard-copies, so neener-neener.
Btw, the advancements in quality don't even enter into the argument, save for mass-scale bootlegging uses them as sources.

Even just before HD, it was trivial for the Average Joe to capture content, but now it seems more trouble than it is worth (unless there are hdcp-free hdmi capture cards that I don't know about). If the firewire port on my cable DVR box would work as intended, I could just dump the stuff myself. Big Media seems to have crippled it, so, alas, I will continue to use torrents as my recording device. After all, if I can capture something and you can capture something, logically, I could have you capture something for me and vice-versa, so long as we both have subscriptions to said content... and that's just television.

I do have a theory called the Subscriber-Capture Paradox. Basically it means that once something is aired on your subscription service, any previous/subsequent copy you have of it becomes fair use, because, after all, you could have just captured it yourself.

Lastly, before you start calling me a freeloading, good-for-nothing pirate, let me assure you, I DO buy plenty of movies (~800dvds and ~110blu-rays). TV shows...not so much, but our household does have most of what the cable provider offers (including premium channels), as well as Netflix, so I do pay my fair share.

Re:$24

[dbIII]

I think a major part of the problem here is that the suggested fine is so disproportionate and is vastly more for instance than a much more serious offence of smashing a car window and stealing CDs with that music would attract. It's also pushing a civil problem (disobeying commercial terms of service) into the criminal realm, and it's very hard to justify that at all. It's like treating people who share half a hamburger with a friend instead of buying one each as criminals.

Re:$24

[sixsixtysix]

it's past time to put these power and money grubbing cartel fucks into the grave

FTFY!

Re:$24

[cpt kangarooski]

Again, we come back to the law.

And the law is what I want to change.

Indeed, my top five changes to copyright law would probably be:
1) A system of strict formalities (registration, deposit, fee, notice, renewal) in order to get a copyright on a published work;
2) Very short terms (probably 1 year), renewable a varying number of times depending on the type of work (more for, say, a movie, less for, say, a computer program) but probably no more than 20 terms altogether;
3) Making non-infringing (or at least non-actionable) any otherwise infringing act engaged in by a natural person, acting non-commercially;
4) Placing works in the public domain immediately if they are published, under the imprimatur of the copyright holder, with DRM, and having a government-run program of distributing those public domain works and assisting in cracking DRM systems;
5) Withdrawing from all copyright treaties, instead offering national treatment to everyone unilaterally (but using diplomacy to encourage other countries to do the same, as well as to avoid mutually incompatible laws that would leave authors in a bind)

You should be arguing what levels of punishment is acceptable for when you steal my property

Setting aside that something like copyright infringement isn't stealing property -- because stealing doesn't occur and there's no property at issue -- my point 3 above indicates that if it was me, personally, and I acted non-commercially in doing so, the level of punishment would be ... none.

Re:$24

[cpt kangarooski]

Get enough votes behind it and it won't matter what I support.

I never said that I expected authors to like certain copyright reforms. But that's no reason not to have the reforms, even if it means running roughshod over the authors and publishers.

Re:$24

[sixsixtysix]

add to this, that nothing digital should EVER go out of print. sell me an .iso and the cover files, but don't think you can gouge me into paying full, physical retail prices. fuck, even $2-5 is still much better than getting nothing for something you stopped selling in the first place.

Re:$24

[Anonymous Coward]

I have always advocated for a single 20 year term. I'm cheerful to keep it at 20 years, 1 generation. If you are a kid in a band at 20, and you write a really great song, you get to live off that song for 20 years, till you are 40. No other area of human achievement allows that long a time for someone to live off a work, and musical styles are outdated by that time. No use burdening subsequent generations with outrageously long copyright terms. But in the USA, they looked at the length of copyright, and saw that the founding fathers had the sense to outlaw copyright forever, so the copyright cabal and the politicians have got together in recent years, and thought that forever minus 5 second is not forever. They have been thinking about getting 4.6 seconds longer, and then rounding up.

Re:$24

[mlw4428]

All you will accomplish is the forcing of consumers to accept highly restrictive contracts (not user agreements or licenses) that prevent you from doing anything with the software. Point #3 would ensure that I would code in special lockouts that prevent you from using the software and if I just felt like it, a yanking of your rights whenever I felt I couldn't trust that you didn't share your software.

Copyright law needs to be changed, but not yanked. Again, the law dictates that I have rights to my IP. You should know full well that when you take away my rights you effectively do something like repeating prohibition -- that worked out wonderfully.

"4) Placing works in the public domain immediately if they are published, under the imprimatur of the copyright holder, with DRM, and having a government-run program of distributing those public domain works and assisting in cracking DRM systems;"

You really are a bloodsucking lawyer, aren't you? You effectively just destroyed capitalism in the sense that I, as an author, should get paid for my work...unless I decide not to publish it, which means I can't make money off of it. Tell me something -- do you provide legal services for free? Should we pass a law dictating that all lawyers should be required to do 4382 hours of free legal services and pay 100% of all filing fees and if you lose you also pay 100% of whatever fees/settlements/penalties are imposed on the person you're representing?

I'm truly curious what your law practice is...where you practice, and hell what your practice's name is. I'd truly love an opportunity to put to test all of your theories and if you didn't meet my satisfaction...I'd copy all of your documents and share them to everyone -- with your permission of course. Yes, you may get disbarred, but you don't have a right to be a lawyer anyways. Would you be willing to put your practice up and work for free? If not, then you understand where I'm coming from and are just being a prick because you're too cheap to pay for the work I put into something.

Re:$24

[mlw4428]

Actually it is. America is about equality -- thus far you haven't commented on surrendering your client's files to me. You haven't commented on providing free legal services for at least 6 months out of the, including the payment of all expenses. Do you feel like you deserve to be paid or are inherently better than an author of some creative work? Why do you not live up to the standards you advocate to force on someone else? Before advocating for change, you should be willing to live it yourself -- are you prepared to give me some free legal services? If not, why? Why do you feel that you should be paid, but not me?

Re:$24

[fyngyrz]

Just back after watching it through.

Several things. The irony of the prohibitionist saying that people using drugs could never admit they were wrong and so needed to be stood up to, during an evening where a great deal of what he was saying was wrong, and people were standing up to him, was quite poignant.

The lesson here is that even when the arguments are couched in terms of empirical data, the prohibitionists are in no way inclined to listen. The defender of drug prohibition was an ex-government figure; even outside the context of having to back the administration that put him in that position, he couldn't admit he was wrong. And he was so very, very wrong.

Not that it matters, but several opportunities were lost, I thought, WRT claims of violence consequent to legalization; low prices deter thievery, availability deters seeking illicit sources, these are obvious but there was no contest offered, which was too bad.

Why I say it doesn't matter is because here, in the context of a Brown university hall, these arguments will have no effect. Half the hall left after the talk and before the Q&A; the level of engagement was minimal. Most of these kids, to be blunt, don't care. They don't care now, when their peers are actively engaged, and they'll care even less when the concern of the day is how to pay back the student loan, the mortgage, and why-o-why did we ever let that pregnancy come to term. The odds of any of them becoming political figures that can make a difference are depressingly low, and frankly, those few are the ones most likely to know better than to try to handle a political hot potato. So really ... doesn't matter. A great speaker indeed, but one who wasted an evening unless he found a good restaurant there.

Looking back on the effect he had on his opponent -- none -- consider what would happen if you put this empiricist, full of vigor and data and common sense, up in front of congress. Do you think it would change anything? I don't believe it. The drug war is a cash cow and a power cow and they simply won't let anyone back it down.

That's how I see the coming copyright war. All the signs are there. I sit through four or five warnings on some BDs and DVDs that I have purchased. I'm starting to see absurd monetary awards. Those same warnings point out there are criminal, not civil, penalties for various infringements upon the rights holders. HDMI incorporates HDCP, and my expensive receiver no longer offers the simple ability to record, or to down convert from say, HDMI to component or even composite. The barriers are going up everywhere, and the penalties are being crafted right now, as are the legal precedents that are going to be the bloody edge of the axe that strikes the collective neck of the current and forthcoming generations.

I wish I didn't see it that way. But I do. I hope I'm wrong. But I'm almost certain I'm not.

Re:$24

[anagama]

Like you, I'm pessimistic. Well, that's not correct. Fatalistic is more the word. I think the DNC response to the white paper on the secret drone memos cinched it. I've been waiting years for the DNC to address that like it addressed secret memos in the GWB era -- instead, all we got is the same lame ass excuses the GOP used to to protect Bush from the DNC. We're well on our way to an authoritarian government, and Americans by and large, crave it. More prisons, more cops, more surveillance. The only road I see is through to what comes after, which is hopefully better but probably worse.

Re:$24

[Anonymous Coward]

Only if the client made it public/published it.

Otherwise its like legalizing unauthorized access to someone's saved games and screenshots that that person did not make available publically.

Re:$24

[cpt kangarooski]

All you will accomplish is the forcing of consumers to accept highly restrictive contracts (not user agreements or licenses) that prevent you from doing anything with the software.

Well, I'm opposed to adhesive contracts, at least in consumer settings. It wouldn't take much tweaking of the UCC to shut that down, but I felt it was outside the realm of a discussion about copyright.

Individually negotiated contracts, OTOH, are okay I guess. At the very least I'd be willing to take a wait and see attitude. I figure the transactional costs will handle it.

Point #3 would ensure that I would code in special lockouts that prevent you from using the software and if I just felt like it, a yanking of your rights whenever I felt I couldn't trust that you didn't share your software.

I'm guessing you hadn't reached point 4 yet, when you wrote that.

Copyright law needs to be changed, but not yanked.

I agree wholeheartedly. I think that the basic idea of copyright is very good, but the implementation needs serious work. Abolition should remain on the table, but is obviously an option of last resort; it only makes sense when there is not a single possible copyright law that provides a greater public benefit than having no copyright law at all. I don't think this is likely anytime soon.

Of course, I have noticed more and more people who, frustrated with how bad the current law is, are supporting abolition just to be done with the whole thing. This is a dangerous side effect of copyright maximalism, IMO.

You should know full well that when you take away my rights you effectively do something like repeating prohibition -- that worked out wonderfully.

Again, I agree. When you have copyright laws, you take away my right to make copies of your published work. And while this can be justifiable, if I benefit more from that sacrifice than I lose, under the current law much otherwise unobjectionable behavior is being prohibited, the law is widely flouted, and it reminds me a lot of Prohibition.

If copyright were far more important -- like desegregation -- then I could see pushing it on a public that was not happy about it. But it's not anywhere near that level. Copyright really is of trifling importance in the grand scheme of things, somewhere in the neighborhood of building codes that require white picket fences or bans on jaywalking.

You really are a bloodsucking lawyer, aren't you? You effectively just destroyed capitalism in the sense that I, as an author, should get paid for my work...unless I decide not to publish it, which means I can't make money off of it.

Melodramatic much?

Right now there are a plethora of ways that you, as an author, cannot get paid for your work. For example, if you sell a copy of a book, you can get paid for it that one time only; after that, everyone can resell that same copy again and again and again and you don't see a dime.

All I'm doing is creating a single exception which would allow natural persons (as distinct from artificial entities, like corporations) to act freely -- as they basically already do -- provided that it is strictly non-commerical. No ads, no tip jars, no file sharing ratios, nothing.
You can still sell copies to people; some of them will buy it. You can still sell copies to other entities, or to people engaged in commerce.

Copyright, remember, doesn't guarantee that the copyright holder will make money, it just funnels a goodly portion of whatever money there is in the direction of the copyright holder. The funnel is not changing, but the available pool of money may shrink somewhat.

I would agree that it is a big deal. I have traditionally thought of this as the nuclear bomb of copyright exceptions. But after a long time of mulling it over, I support it. Filesharing is the new drinking, and banning it is as futile and dangerous as Prohibition was. And Pr

Re:$24

[cpt kangarooski]

Why do you feel that you should be paid, but not me?

Why do you think that you couldn't get paid by offering your creative talents as a service, as opposed to what I imagine is your current practice of creating a work at your own expense and then selling copies?

Before I went to law school, I used to be a professional artist. And I supported myself quite comfortably selling my artistic services. I didn't need copyright to get by, and my clients didn't care about it either.

And there are other ways of making money from art. Fine artists (painters, sculptors, etc.) typically get paid for particular pieces. An original painting can command prices that no other copy of the same work can. A Van Gogh can go for millions; the life-sized poster of the same thing is a few bucks, because people will pay for provenance.

As a lawyer, I sell my services because I can't sell anything like copies. What would I do? Sell copies of a brief or a memo tailored for one case to some completely different client? Sell the outcome of a court case? The idea is nonsensical. But lawyers, doctors, plumbers, and even a lot of programmers and artists work in the service economy. Give it a try sometime.

America is about equality

Yes, there would certainly be an equal vote for the legislators who would draft the reforms and (indirectly) the President who would sign it. And the reforms would certainly affect everyone equally. So that problem is solved.

If you thought, though, that authors as a profession are entitled to an equal share of the income made in this country, well, you must not know many authors. The cliche of the starving artist exists for a reason. Copyright never guaranteed you a living; just a chance at one. And it would still do so even if substantially altered.

Re:$24

[fyngyrz]

While I agree that the content providers are out of control and that the congress is in fact just their legal arm there is still the problem that content has a cost to produce. If everyone didn't pay for it and everyone stole it then the content would dry up.

Some content does. Notably movies. Music, not so much. I'm a musician, I have a complete 32 track studio in my home, along with a full band's worth of instruments. If you brought me several rhythm guitarists, a singer, a keyboard player, a bassist, a drummer and a lead player, all without gear, I could set them up, record them, either together or by individual tracks, and produce a high quality master CD for them for zero cost beyond what I've already invested -- and what I've invested (some years back now) is less than a cheap car, and even that was far more than you'd have to spend today to do the same thing. Or, if I went acoustic, I could walk into a bar, sit down, and begin to play and sing. No cost other than my time. Dinner, a few beers (not too many or the performance... ugh, lol) maybe a few bucks in a hat... that'd make it practical, if the audiences found me worthy. Attention from the opposite sex used to go a long way too, though today, I'm settled down.

So bands... no. Most television productions aren't worth a plugged nickel. The acting is terrible, the scripts worse. Something like Avatar or the new Star Trek... some spending happening there and no way around it as yet. Less in the future, I think, but still, gotta give your point to you on that front. All I can say there is I own both recordings; not even a slight urge to grab them for free. Well worth the cost. I'd like to be able to back them up, lest something happen like what happened to Heavy Metal (rights bitch fight), or perhaps one of the kids using it for a clay pigeon, etc. I can't.

If everyone didn't pay for it and everyone stole it then the content would dry up.

No, you really can't make that argument. There wouldn't have been any music, opera, plays, street performers prior to about 1920 if that was the case. But there were. There are other forms of funding that the arts can extract from society than direct charge for recordings. We can ague the merit of those methods, but you can't say they didn't work, because they most assuredly did. I suspect they'd work again, and in such an environment, we'd see some very fine performers, as well as a good bit more variety. But that is, of course, just my opinion.

What you're missing here is that music, and I presume other forms of performance are, is a joy to produce. I'd kick you out of the way to get a space to play. It's not always about money. Ask yourself if you'd have to be paid to have sex. It's kind of like that. I couldn't tell you how many times I've played for free, both solo and with bands. And I'm pretty good -- fifty years of experience now, rock, blues, hard rock, even some folk, that's me. I just love music and performing musically, and that's true for a very large portion of the other musicians I've known over the years. Fame isn't the prime motivator for everyone, nor is money. Sex, well, yeah. ;)

I personally try my best to not purchase music and content from other than the artist.

This is an excellent strategy and I encourage you to pursue it. I always buy a CD from a live performance, if they offer one. Or several, hell, I'll buy your whole catalog if given a chance and you gave me a nice evening.

What you have to do, though, to make that strategy really effective, is get everyone you know to pursue it, and they their acquaintances, etc., ad infinitum.

Re:$24

[fyngyrz]

The power of these draconian laws are in their chilling effects, not their actual prosecution.

Look at the drug war, and see if you can say that again with a straight face. I'd submit you should have used "and" instead of "not."

Re:$24

[cheekyjohnson]

Why only non-commercial file sharing? Just get rid of copyright entirely.

Re:$24

[Anonymous Coward]

I have a right to my property.

Not much of a right if it eventually expires, is it (well, technically, it's supposed to be temporary)? Like it or not, your 'right' to a monopoly is nothing like the right to free speech or the right to real property.

It also has nothing to do with stealing; you're pathetic.

Re:$24

[Anonymous Coward]

You should know full well that when you take away my rights you effectively do something like repeating prohibition

I'm not quite sure how simply not punishing people for distributing data that you claim to own or downloading it is the same as or even similar to prohibition. Nice try.

You really are a bloodsucking lawyer, aren't you? You effectively just destroyed capitalism in the sense that I, as an author, should get paid for my work...unless I decide not to publish it, which means I can't make money off of it.

Anyone with a brain already believes you shouldn't be entitled to a government-enforced monopoly. IP is more like socialism than capitalism.

I'm not even going to bother responding to the rest; your arguments are terrible, and quite frankly, have been debunked a myriad of times in the past. You have shown yourself to be an entitled (I know how much people like you enjoy using that word, so let me turn the tables), brainless imbecile.

Re:$24

[Zencyde]

Seriously? All that what you've explained should tell you is that we take copyright law entirely too seriously. If it NEEDS absurd charges to be worth pursuing, it's probably not worth protecting. Being wasteful with money is not a way to run a country. If something is more expensive to protect than the thing that is being protected, it is not worth protecting. How is that difficult to catch on to? Manage your country like you would your personal finances (assuming you don't live paycheck to paycheck). Waste your time, effort, and money on the things that have a return on investment, not the things that drag you further into a hole. How many hours of court time was wasted for this crap? For something that can ultimately be represented as a base-10 number, which is inherently not copyrightable, we are wasting a lot of damn time. 8 years of court time and a woman losing what would amount to a house, when no one's livelihood was at risk? I'm sorry sir, but your logic is damning.

Re:$24

[Billlagr]

Mines 26, and I'm 41 - do I win? :D

Re:$24

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not a lawyer, but I do have copies of very confidential information from my clients. If one day you break into my office, make a copy of that information and distribute it to everyone, I would sue your ass for so much money you'll have to file for bankruptcy. But you know what? If I publish this confidential information publicly, then I think it's out of my control and I won't do a thing if you copy it.

You don't want your work to be copied? Then simply hide it in a safe and don't share it with anyone, like I do with my clients information. At the very least, before you privately give a copy of your work to someone, make him sign a non-disclosure agreement before giving him anything.

Re:$24

[Waccoon]

You don't inherently have a right to prohibit people from copying it, distributing it, etc. So where's that leave us?

Usually on Slashdot, whining and bitching about their privacy, and how corporations are "stealing" our personal information and selling it to their affiliates.

Cue another heated debate one how your private shopping habits from Discrete Brown Packaging, Inc. are not the same as the 100 songs you just downloaded.

Re:$24

[chrismcb]

Or we can, as a society, reject the notion that non-commercial file sharing should be a crime at all .

And what is "non-commercial?" Are you saying it is ok to copy stuff as long as you aren't reselling it? Or its ok to copy stuff someone else wrote, even if that person isn't selling it?

Re:$24

[chrismcb]

And what are your "rights" The ability to take something from someone else without their permission?

Re:$24

[chrismcb]

, but if you do, you don't have any right to control what they (and then, others) do with it, unless they willingly give you that right.

Here in America... as is with many other countries, you've already given that right. You've agree to give that right to the content creators, SO the content creators will create.

Re:$24

[Anonymous Coward]

> If everyone didn't pay for it and everyone stole it then the content would dry up.

1) I don't believe it
2) I' m starting to believe this would still be an improvement. Content is not necessary for anyone to survive, and we have more old stuff than anyone can consume in their lifetime anyway.

Re:$24

[Anonymous Coward]

Getting paid for your labor is a birthright as an American, at least since the 13th Amendment. If the labor is legal, you should be able to get paid.

The whole commercial versus non-commercial dichotomy is a very poor one. It works okay for private contracts, mostly because people can choose on an ad hoc basis where to draw the line. But if the courts are required to constantly step in to patrol the distinction, most people aren't going to like the outcome.

Look at Fair Use. Presumably students should be given large berth to make fair use of copyrighted material during their research. But what about the university? Is it not deriving considerably financial benefit when it, e.g., some "non-commercial" use of copyrighted material is assigned to a bunch of students, even if they individually and separately acquire the material?

The practical way to get a commercial/non-commercial distinction is to dramatically lower the penalty for infringement. That way only the big guys will get sued, and everybody will be passed up.

Problem solved, at least for those who want a quick fix.

Re:$24

[FuzzNugget]

You got that the wrong way around: private rights were the means, the public interest was the end.

Re:$24

[Anonymous Coward]

hard copies(mp3 or any file counts as this) don't use bandwidth, don't require an internet connection, can NOT be taken away from you.

Re:$24

[Anonymous Coward]

The "why" is termed precatory language. (Although "precatory" is typically used in the contexts of wills and trusts, it applies to all legal interpretation.) As a general rule precatory language is simply ignored. Courts apply rules, and wishes and desires aren't rules. How are courts supposed to reliably police what legislative enactments advance Science (i.e. what we call liberal arts) and the Useful Arts (aka what we call science)?

Only in egregious circumstances, where the the rules are totally fscked up, will courts look to precatory language to help them. This is rare, _especially_ in Constitutional Law, because relying on precatory language allows for future courts to ignore precedent. It's just too loosey-goosey.

Just as with the 2nd Amendment, the precatory language of the Copyright Clause receives almost no consideration whatsoever. Judges don't want to be in the position of eternally deciding what makes for a well-trained militia, or whether something hinders or helps distribution of knowledge. Those are the kinds of decisions for which legislatures were invented, where people can conjecture to their hearts content.

Re:$24

[thetoadwarrior]

Sorry bro, you need to pay for your stuff.

Re:$24

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

I didn't say ALL draconian laws, I said these draconian laws. Given the context, it should be pretty clear I was talking about copyright enforcement.

Re:$24

[AK Marc]

Mines 25 and I'm 40. Does that mean I win next year?

Re:$24

[fyngyrz]

It was. That's exactly what I'm saying. Here comes the copyright war. Enjoy the ride.

Re:$24

[jones_supa]

You don't inherently have a right to something I produce or create

You don't inherently have a right to prohibit people from copying it, distributing it, etc. So where's that leave us?

If someone makes a song, sells it, and you think you can copy it freely, then you greatly take power from the original author to sell the song anymore. It leaves us with dull automated music generators, which can generate music for almost free, which is the price people are willing to pay for it. I don't see how the equation would work otherwise.

Re:$24

[jones_supa]

In this case a $100 fine would have been good. It's a nice smack in the face to get the message through but still not destroy one's life.

Re:$24

[Anonymous Coward]

America is about equality.

Ha. Ahaha. You owe me a cup of coffee and a new keyboard.

Re:$24

[oobayly]

I managed to get 1 minute into the second bloke's talk. Obviously I'm going to have to watch it again, but how can a public figure be so bad at public speaking? It makes me think he's going to lose the debate before he's started.

Re:$24

[Anonymous Coward]

I'll never believe the drugs should not be controlled nonsense. I've seen too many really bad consequences of drug use. Yes there are a lot of people in prison for drug crimes. But we would have a greater problem if they were not in prison. And it does not help to spew the old false arguments. Whether it is in Amsterdam or in Alaska drug policies that were liberalized have now gone back towards harsher control simply because of the consequences.
                        Really just a desire to get high is in itself a proof that something is very wrong with a person. I hope we find a quick and easy medical fix but if we can not we might see a day in which those that get high or drunk are simply quickly executed. If we have too many of them and can not afford to keep them locked down and can not release them then termination becomes the one remaining choice.
                          California offers a great example now with pot. Check the prices on pot in the stores that sell it. Now tell me that users do not have to get involved in crime to pay for their pot. One way or another these folks are doing crimes to get by and get high. How many people in America have an extra $50. a week to waste on pot? How many working people even have an hour or two free a week to get high? These days people work, sleep and answer the bell and do it all over again just to have rent and groceries.

Re:$24

[L4t3r4lu5]

IMHO, Beethoven's 9th was the contemporary equivalent. Is "Pop classical" even a genre?

Re:$24

[Anonymous Coward]

[...] just as I don't have the right to your house, car, wife, or daughter. I do believe in ownership [...]

Woah.

Re:$24

[serviscope_minor]

just in order to attempt assert the liberty one should have to ingest what one prefers to ingest.

I don't think you can claim that as a universal liberty. I like to ingest the long pig, for example. Preferably live.

(for the humour impaired: I do agree with you. No reason weed should be illegal)

Re:$24

[Xest]

"Ongoing activity is not evidence of a "win." Look at the drug war for your benchmark."

It's not evidence of a lose either, merely that the war is still underway.

"You think facing down the corporate interests with a "so what" mentality will win the day, I'm really afraid you're not only wrong, but wrong in a way that's going to get a lot of people hurt."

It's better than running scared of the system and acting like a good little sheep that has no freedom that's for sure.

"Yes, but again, they don't know very much about it yet, nor do they understand the potential consequences. There's a great deal of "Internet Superman" behavior -- loudmouthery and etc. -- but when it comes time to face the judge, that stuff tends to evaporate like the worthless bluster it is."

Which is fine, but it's not as if they can even come close to catching and dealing with a non-negligible proportion of the people involved. The GP agreed with you that yes, some people will get caught and run through the grinders and that sucks for them, but that doesn't stop the hundreds of millions of other people carrying on as is. Even those who do get ruled against by a rigged system it seems to be of little use, most of The Pirate Bay guys who were found guilty are still free and not a penny in compensation has reached the RIAA, Jammie Thomas will likely declare bankruptcy and not have a penny she can even give to them too - the RIAA's legal costs will be far higher than anything she can pay to them even if she were to pay the full $220,000. So sure, some people get caught, some people get run through the courts but so what? It does nothing to help the content industry win the war, they still lose at the end of the day.

"The drug war, in the meantime, has turned prison into a for-profit enterprise; it's no longer a negative to the state to incarcerate you (and take all your stuff, ruin your life, etc.) The more, the merrier: They'll just build more prisons and use you as slave labor. So when they begin to really reap the violators -- and you may be dead certain they will -- the prison system is ready to pack you in there like sardines, no problem."

This point is really US centric, so I'll simply make the point that even if they managed to jail the entire population of the US there's still over a billion pirates elsewhere in the world they can't deal with, they still don't win.

"Now you're beginning to get it. Weed -- only one drug, and one so harmless it's amazing -- is just barely getting traction at the state level"

You grossly understate this (but I assume it's probably down to lack of awareness of global politics). Other countries are making moves too, the deputy PM in the UK wants legalisation after a committee of MPs decided it made sense following a year long study into it, a couple of countries such as Uruguay have decided to defy the global ban on drugs and are legalising them, and the next summit on global drug laws is due soon where there is expected to be removal of the global legal ban on drugs precisely so nations can legislate to legalise some or all of them and put them under state or legal private control. It's not just a handful of US state legalising cannabis, the whole game is changing globally such that it looks like the war on drugs is actually coming to an end, and it wasn't those waging the war that won.

But here's the thing, here's what you really ignore, there have been countless examples through history of people not carring what the law is to the point the law had to be overturned, from giving women the vote, to US prohibition to British pirate radio stations in the 50s, 60s, and 70s, to the arab spring, to equalisation of gay rights and legalisation of drugs now that are slowly coming to a close in some parts of the world- these sorts of things forced governments to change after decades of attempts at policing them failed.

You can't win when you try to legislate out something that the vast majority of people want, it has never worked, not once throughout histor

Re:$24

[gnasher719]

I think a major part of the problem here is that the suggested fine is so disproportionate and is vastly more for instance than a much more serious offence of smashing a car window and stealing CDs with that music would attract. It's also pushing a civil problem (disobeying commercial terms of service) into the criminal realm, and it's very hard to justify that at all. It's like treating people who share half a hamburger with a friend instead of buying one each as criminals.

Basically the problem is the inflexibility of this law. There are some reasonable aspects: If I started selling pirated CDs for profit on a large scale, and a record company finds out and they lost money because of it, it would be unfair towards them if I had to pay damages for the 100 CDs they can prove that I sold, and keep the money for the other 999,000 CDs that I sold where they don't have evidence. That's why there are statutory damages.

The first problem is that these statutory damages are "per work". A CD with 20 songs is 20 works. I have one CD with a single song over an hour, that would be only one work. Seems unfair that the statutory damages would be twenty times higher because one artist split the music up in 20 little pieces, while another produced a single piece of music of one hour. And a DVD with a three hour movie is also one work! Apple's MacOS X was in a court case considered "one work". War and Peace is one work, a volume with hundred short stories is hundred works with hundred times the statutory damages.

The second problem with statutory damages is that not only they don't require proof of damages (which is Ok to some degree), but they don't even need reasonable estimates. If I have no income other than selling pirated CDs, and have a big house and two Ferraris, it would be common sense that the damages I caused would be quite high. But if there are 20 million file sharers, and the average file sharer downloaded 1000 songs = about $700 damages (assuming damages = amount the record company would receive if the songs had been purchased from iTunes), then common sense is that the average file sharer also _uploaded_ 1000 songs = $700 damages. And not $220,000 worth.

Re:$24

[TheGavster]

The minimum cost of a pack of cigarettes in Chicago was recently set at$10.50. A pack a day smoker (heavily biased towards low incomes) apparently has $70/wk to blow on psychoactive substances,but we don't see the cigarette tax going down "to prevent crime".

Re:$24

[zenasprime]

Thank you. As a creator myself, I often find this argument ridiculous and obviously from the mouth of someone who is NOT a creator. They don't understand that I create for the joy of creating, not the possibility of monetary reward,

Re:$24

[somersault]

Really just a desire to get high is in itself a proof that something is very wrong with a person

Sooo.. is the desire to go for a walk in the park, or have a nice hot bath or shower on a cold day also proof that there is "something very wrong with a person"? I rarely buy alcohol, and have never bought weed (though I have smoked it a couple of times). I hardly even drink coffee these days. But sometimes it's enjoyable to do these things. Why does there have to be something wrong with someone who wants to do change their environment for a little while, either physically or mentally?

Re:$24

[synapse7]

After 7 years she is probably already into this for more than 24k, what difference does it make at this point.

Re:$24

[arth1]

Or, if I went acoustic, I could walk into a bar, sit down, and begin to play and sing. No cost other than my time.

Until you get the ASCAP and BMI bills for performing in public.

Re:$24

[tresstatus]

I can't agree with this. You can't tell me that the latest boy band single that comes out is your birthright. It is a paradoxically impossible question. If you put the punishment for copyright infrigement at a "reasonable" amount - say, 10 times the price of the CD/whatever it comes on, then it costs more to chase the punishment than it does to get it back. If you put the punishment at a level where it potentially becomes financially feasible for the copyright owner to chase it down, then it is an asinine figure for the actual infringement.

And I can't agree with this. The RIAA shouldn't be going after someone who shared 24 songs. They should be going after someone who is sharing thousands or millions of songs. Then the cost per song, even if it is small like 10 times the price of a CD, becomes more than enough to chase the punishment. If it isn't worth their time to go after someone sharing 10 songs, then they shouldn't be going after them. It may well be worth their time to go after someone sharing thousands of songs. This could be likened to shoplifting....it is illegal to shoplift, but you aren't going to do jail time for stealing a $10 magazine at walmart. You are likely only going to get a misdemeanor and 1 year of probation plus restitution. On the other hand, if you steal $1000 of merchandise (the threshold varies per state.. i think it is $500 in my state) then you are going to get a felony theft charge plus time in jail. It simply isn't worth it for the state or victim (walmart in this example) to pursue more charges on someone who didn't steal much.

Re:$24

[drinkypoo]

Self-immolation has never changed anything, except by turning a victim into more of a victim. It is the ultimate proof of willingness to be abused.

If you want to change things with fire, setting yourself alight is not going to do that, except for you and your loved ones. Our media will just find a bunch of people to describe you as emotionally and intellectually damaged, and you will be ignored.

I'm not advocating burning other people, or burning things down, just stating a fact.

Re:$24

[bluefoxlucid]

As THE creator, I still think you're a bunch of hippies; but Adam and Eve were created naked so.

Re:$24

[arth1]

Actually it is. America is about equality

*blink*
America is about opportunity, not equality. If anything, the system depends on inequality, and abhors equality.

Do you feel like you deserve to be paid or are inherently better than an author of some creative work? Why do you not live up to the standards you advocate to force on someone else? Before advocating for change, you should be willing to live it yourself -- are you prepared to give me some free legal services? If not, why? Why do you feel that you should be paid, but not me?

I'm not the gp, but you miss some big differences.
- A lawyer (and yes, this word leaves me with a bad taste in my mouth) does not demand payment when you copy his work. Other lawyers copy and cite law cases pretty freely, and so does the public. NYCountyLawyer does not come after us if we cite his legal opinion, nor does he employ collection agencies. in short, a lawyer has to keep on working to make money, and can't rest on his laurels and continue be paid for something he did 20 years ago.
- We are not obliged to pay for services we didn't sign up for.
- If I hire a lawyer, I pay him. If I hire an artist to perform, I pay him. If the lawyer hires a PI, he pays him (and charges me for the expenses. If the artist hires a songwriter, he pays him (and charges me for the expenses). In no way does the PI and lawyer continue to get paid in perpetuity.
- You are free to use the same system as the lawyer. You can sell your creative works under contract instead of giving it to the public in exchange for the public giving you limited (or they were supposed to be limited) copyright protections. If you cannot make a living that way, you have to ask yourself whether your services are really that wanted or needed.

Re:$24

[ichthyoboy]

Unless, you know, he's playing his own songs.....

Re:$24

[Jason Levine]

I have similar views, but disagree with your first point. Suppose I take a photo and post it online in a blog post. Under your first rule, my photo wouldn't be considered to be copyrighted and thus would be free for anyone to take for any reason. In today's world of smartphone cameras and instant posting, having to file an application is a lengthy step that few would take.

I'd also argue that one year terms would be ridiculously short. Again, if you are requiring me to register all of my photos, and if I've taken 100 photos, I could be spending all of my time filling out renewal forms. (Or I could assign that to a company in which case you get one of the problems we have today: Big Copyright Companies forming and using their might to alter copyright law.)

My four changes to the system would be:

1) Unregistered copyrights would last for 14 years from publication date. (Just like they did when the Founding Fathers were around, but minus the registration requirement.)

2) If you wanted more time after 14 years, you could pay a fee to renew it for an additional 14 years. You could only do this once, however.

3) Removing the DRM circumvention provisions of the DMCA. Ripping a DVD (still covered by copyright) and sharing that out with others would still be illegal, but only because the "sharing" part was illegal. Ripping that same DVD for your own use (or for other Fair Use situations like parody) would be fine.

4) Penalties would be split between "for profit" and "home" infringement. Rip a DVD to make a thousand copies and sell them on the street corner? Face the current $750 - $150,000 penalties. Share a DVD rip online without charging anyone for it? Face much smaller penalties. Something that would still act as a deterrent, but without bankrupting individuals. Say, 10 times the selling price of the item. So Jammie Thomas' 24 shared songs ($0.99 each) would being a fine of about $240 instead of hundreds of thousands of dollars. If this doesn't seem like much of a deterrent, remember that it isn't many songs. Had Jammie Thomas shared 1,000 songs, the fine would have been around $1,000.

Re:$24

[cdrudge]

Just to point out, many FOSS projects rely on copyright in order for copyleft to be enforced. If it's just a free-for-all, some of the projects likely would still exist, but companies or individuals would be free to take publicly available source, possibly make changes, then close it up and never giving credit to the original authors or sharing the code that may be required.

Re:$24

[Jason Levine]

Me personally, I would be happy to pay that $2 per episode to get a decent quality mkv or even mp4 and be able to store it on my server and watch it via my WD media player.

This would probably even make more money for content owners. The first season of Big Bang Theory can be purchased on DVD for about $20. Alternatively, those 17 episodes would cost $34 to buy via a theoretical "$2 per episode in MKV/MP4 format" service. Yes, some of that money would go to the service, but much would still go to the content owners and they wouldn't need to create/ship physical discs.

Re:$24

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm really afraid you're not only wrong, but wrong in a way that's going to get a lot of people hurt.

Copyright is even less enforceable than drug laws under normal circumstances. In cases where an individual is technologically competent, copyright is almost completely unenforceable. All that needs to happen is that people become a little more informed.

Re:$24

[cpt kangarooski]

I have similar views, but disagree with your first point. Suppose I take a photo and post it online in a blog post. Under your first rule, my photo wouldn't be considered to be copyrighted and thus would be free for anyone to take for any reason. In today's world of smartphone cameras and instant posting, having to file an application is a lengthy step that few would take.

That's basically the idea. Copyrights should be granted where they do actually incentivize the author to create and publish works which otherwise would not be created and published. But they should not be granted if the author would've done it anyway; to do so in that case would be unnecessary and wasteful. The best mechanism I know of to determine which is which is to let the authors opt in: if copyright is important to them, they'll act to get one, and won't if not. It doesn't work for opting out, as authors who don't care about copyright usually won't be bothered to take affirmative steps to disclaim it.

That having been said, the registration formality should be a small hurdle. I don't want to discourage authors seeking or getting copyrights, just their getting them when they don't need them. The form would surely be not much more complex than a change of address form, and the filing fee could be a token dollar (more perhaps for claimants who claim a lot and can afford it, like Disney).

I'd also argue that one year terms would be ridiculously short. Again, if you are requiring me to register all of my photos, and if I've taken 100 photos, I could be spending all of my time filling out renewal forms.

Well, first, if not doing a bit of paperwork is worth more to you than a copyright, that's the sort of thing that would make me think the copyright is not too important to you. Second, you can already, depending on the precise circumstances, have group registrations for multiple works, and I have no problem with that. It could even be online and largely automated (though it'll still be charging fees to your bank account or credit card which may give you cause to pause).

1) Unregistered copyrights would last for 14 years from publication date. (Just like they did when the Founding Fathers were around, but minus the registration requirement.)

Why 14 years? What is your rationale? Surely nostalgia isn't a good reason. The term lengths and maximum lengths with renewal should have some objective reasoning behind them.

Re:$24

[Anonymous Coward]

Why do you feel that you should be paid, but not me?

Why do you think that you couldn't get paid by offering your creative talents as a service, as opposed to what I imagine is your current practice of creating a work at your own expense and then selling copies?

The real issue here is that one source of income is passive, the other is not. Nobody actually wants to work to get paid.

Re:$24

[cheekyjohnson]

I'm aware of that, but since there seems to be plenty of people who work on free software simply believe they believe that that's what should be done, I think there would be plenty of projects. Companies also wouldn't have any ability to sue people out of existence.

Re:$24

[cheekyjohnson]

Getting paid for your labor is a birthright as an American, at least since the 13th Amendment. If the labor is legal, you should be able to get paid.

No one is forcing them to make anything for free; they make things of their own volition, and people who copy things after the fact have nothing to do with their original decisions.

Re:$24

[smooth wombat]

reject the notion that non-commercial file sharing should be a crime at all

So one person buys the song then shares it out to the rest of world, leaving the artist with nothing.

Oh, you want them to be on permanent tour so they can make money? Yeah, that will work out well.

Re:$24

[Theaetetus]

You can't tell me that the latest boy band single that comes out is your birthright.

The right to take culture, modify it, and release it back to the world, enriching our common cultural heritage ... that certainly can be argued to be our birthright, in which case the current copyright regime is manifestly unjust. There's a reasonable compromise in which we say that modifying and releasing previous works is a human right, but getting paid for it isn't: in which case copyright should be enforced for commercial infringement only.

Important distinction. What you're arguing for is a change in the law around derivative works, and there are very good arguments for that. But that's not what Thomas did. She wasn't remixing or sampling or creating a new creative work off of bones of the older work. She just copied and distributed, and that argument doesn't apply to her. Girl Talk? Sure. Deadmau5? Sure. RunDMC? Absolutely. But Thomas? Nope.

Re:$24

[arth1]

Unless, you know, he's playing his own songs.....

That doesn't matter.

From http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090109/1823043352.shtml
"ASCAP and BMI have been aggressively targeting venues that hold open mic nights, and demanding they pay huge fees. Many venues have given up and simply stopped allowing any musicians to play at all. In fact, one made every musician sign a waiver that they would only play original songs, and ASCAP told him it didn't matter because there was no way to know if the singers were really avoiding copyrighted music, so he still needed to pay up for a license. "

Re:$24

[Anonymous Coward]

Sooner or later (measured in decades...) common sense does indeed prevail.

What planet were you on when you wrote that?

Re:$24

[Anonymous Coward]

And in reiterating further, they have turned common sense into a commodity and no one in a position to give it out freely does so these days.

Re:$24

[Anonymous Coward]

Being a lawyer you sure don't seem to understand that society provides for intellectual property...which says that of which I create IS mine.

Not according to the US Constitution you don't. We, the people, own your "intellectual property" and you only have a "limited time" monopoly on its publication.

But I also understand that creating shit costs money in some form or fashion

How much does it cost me to write a book or a song? NOTHING. A little time doing something enjoyable. And guess what? If you don't love writing or painting or playing an instrument, you're going to suck at it.

How much did this cost to produce? It's only a few chapters short of being a book (yes, it's my work, can't log in on this computer) and yes, when this first rough draft is done it will be for sale in dead tree form, and free as an ebook. The first draft isn't even finished and already a copy has been sold! I am a content creator and I am completely for legalizing what is now known as "noncommercial infringement." Copyright law is supposed to protect me from commercial publishers, parasites who would earn money from my work, not its readers.

As Doctorow pointed out, nobody ever lost a dime from piracy, but many artists have gone hungry from obscurity. Vincent Van Gogh is one, he sold only one painting in his entire life, for a pittance, to his brother. The art galleries refused to show his work, which is much like Doubleday or UMG not wanting to publish your book or record album. Artists no longer need UMG and Doubleday, and that's why they're after pirates: piracy sells and the indies use "pirate tools" like TPB to get their work out in front of the public, and this DOES cost Doubleday and UMG. An indie book you buy is a Doubleday book you don't buy, an indie CD you buy costs UMG a sale, since you already spent "their" money on that indie CD.

The publishers' fight is against their independant competetion, which (at least in music) is eating their lunch.

Re:$24

[Quirkz]

I don't think they're mutually exclusive. I create BOTH for the joy of creating and for the hopes of a monetary reward. And often times when I have to choose between which of many creative things I could be doing, I'm at least in part swayed by which one might provide income. I say this as a writer rather than musician, though, which possibly changes my perspective - music and writing aren't really shared and enjoyed in the same ways.

Re:$24

[Quirkz]

Painters and musicians I can almost see in a service economy. What would you have the novel writers do?

Re:$24

[noh8rz10]

I'm cool with (1) and (2) to an extent. but:

(3) if a person downloads a song instead of buying it then it is inherently a commercial act. perhaps there is a small niche of non-commercial infringing acts, but I can't think of any.

(4) I thought the author was free to publish or not publish, isn't that what you said? Surely he's free to publish in certain places, or on specific media. why cant he publish in whatever file type he chooses? This goes against your earlier argument.

(4) cont... oh goodie another gov't program. way to go liberty boy!

(5) copyright treaties have nothing to do with our national laws.

Re:$24

[noh8rz10]

personal filesharing is a commercial act if it results in fewer sales. you cannot disagree with this.

Re:$24

[Quirkz]

I've only recently gotten into Pandora, but every time it's on I find myself noting some new artist I'd never heard before or not really paid attention to that I'd like to track down. It's serving as a fantastic recommendations tool. And yes, if I decide I like someone enough, I'll buy their stuff online because it really is easy, convenient, and reliable, and the price is acceptable.

Re:$24

[noh8rz10]

If I could download a decent quality (doesn't have to be super duper 1080p or anything like that) at the time it comes out and without a plethora of ads in it for $1 per episode, or get access to the whole season for say $15 or $20, I would gladly do so.

you can buy season passes on itunes. you get access the day after the show airs. i solved your problem! you may thank me now.

Re:$24

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree with all of your reforms, except that #2 is excessive. One year is way too short a copyright term. The original 14 years, renewable, isn't that bad, but I'd go for 20 years with a single 20 year extension. When Asimov write the Foundation trilogy, he didn't earn a dime on it until ten years later when Doubleday obtained the rights to it. It took me five years to write The Paxil Diaries and a few more to get in publishable form (I seeded Pirate Bay with the PDF) and I staill haven't gotten it in dead tree form. I started Nobots in 2009 and have been posting rough drafts of its chapters since, as I've written them. It will probably be next year at the earliest before I can put them up for sale (the ebook version will be free).

But I do agree that the present "way more than a human lifespan" is WAY out there. 20 years is a good amount; twenty years is only a long time if you're 25. It's not long at all when you're my age.

I'd add a #6, that orphaned works go into the public domain. If it isn't available it shouldn't be protected by copyright.

Re:$24

[cpt kangarooski]

That would swallow the exception. Fair use is meant to consider the effect on sales of the work, but a review that quotes from a work under fair use in order to discourage people from buying the work (because it is bad) would still be okay.

Roughly, commercial use in this context means that the person using the exception is profiting in some way other than merely obtaining the work in question. So users of this exception could not use ad-supported sites, could not have tip jars or accept donations, could not ask for people to reimburse their costs, could not sell merchandise associated with the exception, could not have file sharing ratios, etc.

Basically, if you want to use the exception, you do so at a personal financial loss for the costs of the mechanism used (whether its burning optical discs or bandwidth or whatever).

Re:$24

[noh8rz10]

no. if you decide to download via torrent bieber's newest single instead of purchasing it, then it is a commercial act and would not be exempted.

Re:$24

[Applekid]

Confirmation bias. You've seen too many really bad consequences of drug use, but you don't see the invisible consequences of drug use because it doesn't cause problems by itself.

You don't see drunken people limping home on foot and passing out on the rug in their bathroom, you see the ones with amazingly poor judgement that decide to get behind the wheel. You don't see a pothead smoking out in his home ordering a pizza, you see the dealers shooting each other in the streets for turf. You don't see the cocaine user doing a line before sex, you see the OD in the emergency room.

The sooner society admits that some people can handle a little freedom and some can't, and crafts it's laws with these in mind instead of hard absolutes, the sooner we fix things.

Re:$24

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, therein lies the physical impossibility. Us, the lower caste, want to tell them, the upper caste, to change something such that the upper caste gets less money. Because why... it's morally corrupt, illegal depending on which laws you look at, and detrimental to society as a whole?

Yeah, let me know how that works out. The lower caste NEVER calls the shots. EVER. Always remember that.

The single only way you'll find a way to fix this is if you somehow convince someone else from the upper caste that they can make even MORE money the other way. And good luck with THAT, because the upper caste never listens to anyone in the lower caste.

Re:$24

[cpt kangarooski]

(3) if a person downloads a song instead of buying it then it is inherently a commercial act. perhaps there is a small niche of non-commercial infringing acts, but I can't think of any.

I just wrote a post about this, but the gist is that I seek to allow generic file sharing and other currently infringing behavior as long as no money is involved and it operates at a loss. Here's the post.

(4) I thought the author was free to publish or not publish, isn't that what you said? Surely he's free to publish in certain places, or on specific media. why cant he publish in whatever file type he chooses? This goes against your earlier argument.

Just poor wording. Authors are free to publish or not. If an author (or someone they've authorized) chooses to publish with DRM, all that happens is that they don't get a copyright. The choice of copyright without DRM or DRM without copyright is up to them, they're just mutually exclusive in much the same way (and for much the same reason) as how you cannot have a trade secret on a patented invention due to patents having disclosure requirements. (You can have trade secrets on non patented inventions or non patented parts of inventions, but there is not overlap)

(4) cont... oh goodie another gov't program. way to go liberty boy!

Well, since the DRMed works are in the public domain, surely it fits into the mission of our national library to help ensure that all Americans can freely access those works. It would cost little other than some server space and bandwidth in practice. Go to the LOC website sometime; some of their collection is online and it's pretty neat stuff. It would be nice for more of it to be available. We can probably afford to cancel one overpriced military aircraft for such massive improvements for culture.

(5) copyright treaties have nothing to do with our national laws.

I'd rather have us withdraw from them instead of violate them whilst still a party. It's nicer if nothing else. And treaty obligations are commonly used to pressure Congress, so that's a strike against them too. And lacking treaties, we would need a unilateral national treatment statute.

Re:$24

[czth]

Oh? It's unfair that you wouldn't have to pay damages for something they couldn't prove you did? Really?

I can't prove that you sold 30,000 unapproved copies of Microsoft Office on the street corner yesterday, so it's OK that you be made to pay as if you did? Or perhaps it's only OK if I can prove you sold one copy?

Re:$24

[Anonymous Coward]

And of course that 14 years is completely ignoring the fact that for virtually every product created in North America, that's about 5 times longer than is even slightly necessary. We live in an extremely quickly changing world. New technolgies come and become obsolete in a matter of a few years. "new" music stops being relevant and fades into the background in a matter of months. We no longer live in the early 1900's, where product designs and tools didn't change for decades.

28 years is just ludicrous. Anything made 28 years ago is essentially going to be irrelevant nowadays, except perhaps the absolute base principles, such as moving electricity over wires, or absolutely dead-basic designs that exist purely due to that being the most physically convenient/efficient physical design. But actual innovation, invention, and creation of entirely new things? Those disappear faster than most TV shows are on the air.

Re:$24

[cpt kangarooski]

Look, we aren't arguing over the meaning of an existing statute (although I am trying to follow in the example of 17 USC 1008), I'm telling you what I would like to see. Commercial use would be defined for the purposes of this law so as to accomplish the purpose I am describing to you.

So mere downloading of a work as I described would not be commercial regardless of whether you could argue it to be in the absence of a definition. Sorry if this wasn't clear before, but I didn't feel like drafting bulletproof statutory language for the purpose of a quick Slashdot post.

Re:$24

[noh8rz10]

I'm not arguing with you, I'm agreeing with you. you said:

3) Making non-infringing (or at least non-actionable) any otherwise infringing act engaged in by a natural person, acting non-commercially;

I'm agreeing with you that when you download the new bieber song instead of purchasing it you are committing a commercial act. Then you agree with me that under your utopia IP regime, illegal filesharers would be committing a crime. we agree! where do I sign?

Re:$24

[trylak]

"You don't inherently have a right to prohibit people from copying it, distributing it, etc. So where's that leave us?" How is this possibly true? So I can buy one copy of the New York Times, make copies of it to sell then pocket all the proceeds myself?

Re:$24

[trylak]

Amazon Unbox player is only needed to actually DOWNLOAD the video content to a computer so it can be viewed without internet access (on a plane, etc). Just wanted to clear that up...

Re:$24

[cpt kangarooski]

I agree with all of your reforms, except that #2 is excessive. One year is way too short a copyright term. The original 14 years, renewable, isn't that bad, but I'd go for 20 years with a single 20 year extension.

Well, you do get more than one of the one year terms. For a book, probably in the neighborhood of 15-20 years after first publication, if you renew annually.

When Asimov write the Foundation trilogy, he didn't earn a dime on it until ten years later when Doubleday obtained the rights to it. It took me five years to write The Paxil Diaries and a few more to get in publishable form (I seeded Pirate Bay with the PDF) and I staill haven't gotten it in dead tree form.

Well, publication is what would start the clock ticking for sure, and require a proper copyright. There should be some kind of protection for unpublished manuscripts to avoid people pirating them, but not so much that authors sit on them. Eventually, allowing manuscript piracy is more rewarding for society than never seeing works published at all!

I'd add a #6, that orphaned works go into the public domain. If it isn't available it shouldn't be protected by copyright.

That's what the one year terms are meant to accomplish. If we used your twenty year terms and the work was orphaned in year five, you've got us sitting around for fifteen years waiting for no good reason. Short terms get works into the public domain faster, if the author fails to renew. And if the author does renew, I'm okay with that.

Re:$24

[Anonymous Coward]

If someone makes a song, sells it, and you think you can copy it freely, then you greatly take power from the original author to sell the song anymore.

Do you work for the RIAA or are you just stupid enough to believe that bullshit? How is my giving you a copy of Metallica's "Free Speech for the Dumb" going to prevent them from selling that song to anyone else? It isn't. And if you'd never heard of Metallica and liked the copy of the song I just gave you, Metallica just got a new customer, who is going to buy more of their songs.

Do you really by books from authors you've never read? Just walk through a bookstore and pick something at random, and plunk your money down? No, you're going to hear it on the radio FOR FREE (and you can record it for free), you can read a book in the library FOR FREE. You're trying to say that libraries put authors out of business. Stupid!

Sorry, you can't possibly be that stupid, you write too well, shill.

Re:$24

[Anonymous Coward]

when something is trivially duplicated, the burden of managing/controlling that duplication should not fall on the tax payers shoulders.

if it does, that is theft.

and a high crime.

Re:$24

[Anonymous Coward]

To quote Keanu Reeves:

Guns. Lots and lots of guns.

Re:$24

[g0bshiTe]

Mines 41 and I'm 40 does that mean next year I can trade her in for 2 21 year olds?

Re:$24

[Anonymous Coward]

Yet another mammon worshiper. How much did you pay for that stuff you're breathing? How much did you pay for that stuff that fell out of couds and watered your garden? How much do you have to pay to read this stuff on slashdot? How much do you pay to read Huckleberry Finn?

How much did I pay for those nectarines that grew on the tree in front of my house?

No, I certainly do not have to pay for stuff. Even food can be free.

Re:$24

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

Self-immolation has never changed anything

I'm pretty sure the people of Tunisia disagree with you.

Re:$24

[mcguiver]

I agree with your list of changes but would make a couple of adjustments. Renewing a copyright every year would be a hassle. I agree with your idea of limiting the duration of the copyright based on the type of work and think that copyrights should be initially granted for the full term. With that said, there should also be a stipulation that the copyright ends with the death of the creator. I think it is an abomination that works are still not in the public domain decades after the creators death.

Somehow though, I think these kinds of changes would be hard to push through. The best that I can hope for is that copyrights terms will be limited to 20 years max and then after that will be allowed for free release for "non-incidental use" but that any commercial use would still be subject to royalty payments. While that would still suck, it would at least be an improvement.

Re:$24

[rubycodez]

well, we're talking about copyright with this article, not patents. There are plenty of songs from the 1950s onward that are still popular "hits", they have stood the test of time.

As for technology and products and thinking nothing much beyond basics endures, maybe you need to learn the history of engineering and technology, it is easy to point to massive world-changing inventions from each and every decade from the 1600s onward that are still relevant today.

Re:$24

[Anonymous Coward]

I can claim it as a universal liberty just fine. If you can aquire your morbid repast in a legal fashion, eat away! Cannabalism is only unethical if people are being killed for meat. There's nothing inherently wrong with eating the flesh of your own species.

Re:$24

[Pigskin-Referee]

It IS A CRIME because it deprives the artist his rightful dues for the item. While I agree that the amount does seem excessive, if it deters others it is worth it. Sorry, but I don't lose sleep over the penalties that a thief has to pay..

Re:$24

[Anonymous Coward]

Obviously from the mouth of someone who doesn't produce anything ACTUALLY GOOD.

See any mainstream media artists giving their shit away? nope?

You haven't embraced your inner greed because you produce awful content.

Re:$24

[TheCarp]

I never made any statement as to what is right or wrong, only what I have seen people do, and what, as far as I can tell the trend is. The question of whats right or wrong in this case is kind of besides the point.

Re:$24

[RockDoctor]

Stop buying content. And stop using it too, so they've got no-one to sue.

Once they've all gone bankrupt ... well, IF you think the content which is now in the public domain is worth spending your time listening to/ watching/ whatever, then you're probably good to go.

It's a plan ; if you can't handle 30 years without music or movies ... well, that's your lookout. Nobody ever got anywhere worth going to without putting in some effort.

Re:$24

[cpt kangarooski]

The first problem is that these statutory damages are "per work". A CD with 20 songs is 20 works. I have one CD with a single song over an hour, that would be only one work. Seems unfair that the statutory damages would be twenty times higher because one artist split the music up in 20 little pieces, while another produced a single piece of music of one hour.

While that can conceivably happen, the general rule is that a compilation is a single work for the purposes of calculating statutory damages. The relevant statutory language is at the end of 17 USC 504(c)(1).

Re:$24

[ArsonSmith]

I have denied you nothing by copying. Just as you have denied me nothing by copying my house and car.

Re:$24

[cpt kangarooski]

Well, copyright does value quantity over quality.

I don't think you're right, what with there having been quite a lot of music made and performed before it was copyrightable. But assuming you're right, people would either be okay with it or would willingly find a different way to encourage the creation of the music they want, including, perhaps, dialing copyright back up somewhat. I think it's a worthy experiment.

Re:$24

[cpt kangarooski]

Purely as a matter of what rights you inherently hold as a human being, and what rights they inherently hold (whether as a corporate entity or a collection of people makes no difference), yes, you can.

But if we add in artificial rights which we, through the mechanism of a democratically elected government which holds legitimacy because we give it the power to govern, grant to the Times, then and only then do they have some power to stop you. But we can always take their power away, or change it, as it suits us; they only have what we ultimately choose to give them.

You can see this for yourself by printing up and selling copies of Shakespeare's works (we gave no power to him or his heirs) as well. The Times may act against you but the hard never will.

Re:$24

[Anonymous Coward]

What rights do I hold inherently as a human being? I can think of life, liberty, food, shelter, maybe a few others. Copying the creations of others seems rather a complex inherent right.

Re:$24

[cpt kangarooski]

Services isn't the only option. Patronage is another option, and if you can't find one big patron, try using kickstarter to find a thousand small ones. It may be difficult to get started as a new author, but that's true now, in a system where the publishers are effectively the patrons.

Re:$24

[trylak]

Apparently I do not hold the inherent right for Chrome to log me into Slashdot across computers. :)

Re:$24

[trylak]

Frankly that seems it could easily be a form of theft.

Re:$24

[mlw4428]

Really? Did you pay me for my work that you took? What gives you the right to have that work? Why do you feel like I shouldn't get what I think my work is worth, what my time is worth?

I'm not saying you HAVE to take my product. You're free to shop elsewhere. Would you be upset if I programmed in a software function that corrupted your data on your PC if you didn't pay for it? If you do backups and you won't lose anything, otherwise you just lost more time than if you had backups. Would that be OK with you?

Re:$24

[cpt kangarooski]

Speech is the right at issue. It includes both the right to say original things and to repeat verbatim things other people said first.

Re:$24

[Anonymous Coward]

You can't tell me that the latest boy band single that comes out is your birthright.

Good point. But what about the song "Happy Birthday to You"? It's a part of our culture and an expected song to sing at birthdays. Right now I can either not sing it, sing it and pay the copyright holder, or sing it and not pay (break the law).

Re:$24

[Macgrrl]

I played Dungeons and Dragons back before it was cool.

Just saw your sig file - D&D is/was cool? When. I have to tell the rest of my party.

(Both myself and my husband have been playing since the original boxed set.)

Re:$24

[ArsonSmith]

Did you pay me for mine? Really? You just copied my home colors and interior decorations without paying me. I put a lot of time and effort into it.

I know it sounds stupid when both of us say it.

Re:$24

[Anonymous Coward]

You didnt paint my house nor did you invent the color(s), tools, or anything used for painting. I wrote the book/software/music you're enjoying.

Apples and oranges.

Re:$24

[bzipitidoo]

I have noticed more and more people who, frustrated with how bad the current law is, are supporting abolition just to be done with the whole thing. This is a dangerous side effect of copyright maximalism, IMO.

Why is abolition dangerous? My own preference is that both copyright and patent law be abolished. Keep trademarks, but put in protections to prevent trademarks from being made to function as de facto copyright and patent law. Same with national secrets, keep them but with curbs to prevent them from being abused more than they already are. (Secrecy is of course routinely abused to cover up problems and violations.) I think that in the US, nothing less than a constitutional amendment, a Freedom of Knowledge Amendment, will protect our right to share knowledge, and settle these issues once and for all. The right to knowledge ought to rank up there with 1st Amendment rights to free speech, religion, and assembly. We still very much need those 1st amendment rights even today, as some people constantly scheme against it. Also, it has to be an amendment because the copyright clause is in the US Constitution.

It is indeed the extremism of the pro-copyright forces that have lead me to this position. Maybe slavery wouldn't have been so bad if there weren't abusive slave owners. For many of these owners, slave women were used to populate what amounted to a harem. Trying to patch up the institution of slavery by dribbling out a few more rights, by for instance making it illegal to have sex with slaves, was not going to work. Only abolition of slavery altogether could head off the problems. And we still have attempts at de facto enslavement, still have people seeking that kind of power and control over others. The "company town" quickly comes to mind. We'll never eliminate all such schemes, but at least we have broad agreement that slavery is immoral.

And that's what we need for knowledge: broad agreement that locking away knowledge is immoral, and that sharing is good, desirable, and a fundamental right. It's been too easy to confuse the public, and persuade many people that they don't have rights that they actually do have. We've had craziness such as governments using copyright to monetize access to the law! We have poor children being denied educational material, over fears that might somehow hurt publishers of textbooks. We have scientists being silenced, technically not allowed to hand out copies of their own works that the public paid for, because they were forced to turn over all copyright to a publisher, in order to get published at all. We've had embarrassing cases such as Dmitry Sklyarov. When a person is technically in violation of copyright just for being overheard while humming a copyrighted song, when people doubt that they have the right to discuss certain subjects such as the details of how to reverse engineer a product lest that somehow infringe on someone's copyright, fair use just isn't enough. George Hotz is another embarrassing case for the Land of the Free. I think that like slavery, copyrights and patents have to go. Until they do, we will continue to see these abusive attempts at extreme control of knowledge enjoy too much success.

I can think of just one way in which copyright does work, as a sort of publicly known usage and endorsement. The example I have in mind is the use of a song in a commercial. (I recall a case in which Nike used the Beatle's Revolution in a commercial, without permission. Nike was sued, and lost.) We can know beyond doubt who the authors are, and who is using the songs. Those users are not private individuals privately using knowledge for their own enjoyment, they are commercial entities seeking to sell products and services to the public, and as such must broadcast to the public. But similar to plagiarism, this need not be covered by copyright. We can enshrine a particular right to compensation in this instance to some other much more limited law. Call it "commercial use right", or "

Re:$24

[Sigg3.net]

It's not a birthright but it should be a civil right,; creations go public domain by default after a period of time which is non-extendable.

Re:$24

[Sigg3.net]

The problem isn't that the US has a political system open to corruption, but that the US' position in the world makes the corrupting very powerful. Indeed it is a problem for democracy in Europe as well, many countries following the leader's "good advice".

Re:$24

[Sigg3.net]

You're both wrong to an extent.

It isn't anything wrong with having fun. The problem is that intoxication is also desirable in other circumstances, for instance when life is difficult.

So we must separate between leisure activity and (subconscious) self-medication.

Re:$24

[Sigg3.net]

+1
If you really want to help out, buy the T-shirt.

However, Radiohead gets on fine doing most work on their own. (They tour a lot too, which is important for a live band. But their example is worth bringing into the discussion.)

Re:$24

[Sigg3.net]

It's not about rights but the facts of communication.

A painter may place his unsatisfying doodles in the shed. But his masterpiece deserves more. Creating it was a great joy and struggle.

He puts it up on a wall and people come to see. Art is the experience between the artifact and the experiencer, hermeneutically a form of communication between the two. The artist doesn't enter into it.

He may receive praise or blame (indifference being the worst) but he doesn't own anything else than the memory of creating it. You don't own your children. Once they "go public" they stand on their own feet.

Re:$24

[fredrated]

You are so fucked in the head words were not created to describe how much.

Re:$24

[cpt kangarooski]

And that's what we need for knowledge: broad agreement that locking away knowledge is immoral, and that sharing is good, desirable, and a fundamental right. It's been too easy to confuse the public, and persuade many people that they don't have rights that they actually do have. We've had craziness such as governments using copyright to monetize access to the law! We have poor children being denied educational material, over fears that might somehow hurt publishers of textbooks. We have scientists being silenced, technically not allowed to hand out copies of their own works that the public paid for, because they were forced to turn over all copyright to a publisher, in order to get published at all. We've had embarrassing cases such as Dmitry Sklyarov. When a person is technically in violation of copyright just for being overheard while humming a copyrighted song, when people doubt that they have the right to discuss certain subjects such as the details of how to reverse engineer a product lest that somehow infringe on someone's copyright, fair use just isn't enough. George Hotz is another embarrassing case for the Land of the Free. I think that like slavery, copyrights and patents have to go. Until they do, we will continue to see these abusive attempts at extreme control of knowledge enjoy too much success.

I can think of just one way in which copyright does work, as a sort of publicly known usage and endorsement. The example I have in mind is the use of a song in a commercial. (I recall a case in which Nike used the Beatle's Revolution in a commercial, without permission. Nike was sued, and lost.) We can know beyond doubt who the authors are, and who is using the songs. Those users are not private individuals privately using knowledge for their own enjoyment, they are commercial entities seeking to sell products and services to the public, and as such must broadcast to the public. But similar to plagiarism, this need not be covered by copyright. We can enshrine a particular right to compensation in this instance to some other much more limited law. Call it "commercial use right", or "sell out right" or some such. (But, want to be careful that an organization like ASCAP can't bully restaurants into paying royalties for playing music regardless of whether they play only free music, such as music that is out of copyright.) We don't need slavery to enforce relationships between employers and employees, and we don't need copyright law for this.

Well, the goal of copyright is to promote the progress of science (by which was meant 'knowledge') for our society. And while it dies have negative effects, if it can be tailored so that the good outweighs the bad, it seems worth having.

I'd generally agree with you, restricting copyright to only apply to uses by non-natural persons, and to commercial uses: if a company that owns a movie theater wants to perform a movie, let them have to pay for permission; if an individual just wants to download a movie to watch, why should they have to pay?

Re:$24

[ArsonSmith]

you didn't invent the letters or language paper internet or anything else. the bits I have are my own, just because I choose to arrange them in the same order you do doesn't mean I am stealing from you.

"Still, the RIAA is sensitive about how it looks"

[Anonymous Coward]

The writer must be new here.

The RIAA is sensitive.

[Anonymous Coward]

Still, the RIAA is sensitive about how it looks if they impoverish a woman of modest means. Look for them to ask her for far less than the $222,000.

Reminds me of the exchange of Good Will Hunting.

Will: He used to just put a belt, a stick, and a wrench on the kitchen table and say, "Choose."

Sean: Well, I gotta go with the belt there.

Will: I used to go with the wrench.

Sean: Why?

Will: Cause fuck him, that's why.

Re:The RIAA is sensitive.

[L4t3r4lu5]

It's a good point, really. With a belt you could go to town and leave nothing more than bruises and welts. A wrench, though, will break bone. He'd have to hold back, and that wouldn't be at all satisfying enough. Keeping the kid out of hospital is priority one with abuse.

SCOTUS Lowered Exxon Valdez Punitive Award

[ebno-10db]

Yet the Supreme Court happily lower the punitive damages in the Exxon Valdez case. From http://www.marketwatch.com/story/us-supreme-court-orders-reduction-in-exxon-valdez-award

Justice David Souter, in the court's majority opinion, said the punitive damages award should be brought into line with $287 million in compensatory damages awarded

So spilling millions of dollars of crude oil into the ocean in a grossly negligent act, destroying the local environment and wrecking people's livelihoods is not a big, but file sharing? There's a threat to the Republic!

Re:SCOTUS Lowered Exxon Valdez Punitive Award

[Anonymous Coward]

Jammie Thomas didn't make any campaign contributions.

Re:SCOTUS Lowered Exxon Valdez Punitive Award

[Anonymous Coward]

Yet another reason to ban elections to the Supreme Court.

Re:SCOTUS Lowered Exxon Valdez Punitive Award

[Anonymous Coward]

Justices do not campaign. They are appointed, go through a confirmation process, and join the Court. I hate to rain on your "Everyone's bought" theory.

Re:SCOTUS Lowered Exxon Valdez Punitive Award

[ebno-10db]

"Justices do not campaign. They are appointed ..." by people who receive bribes (oops, I meant "free speech" campaign contributions) and revolving door jobs (oops again, I meant highly merited post-political positions).

Re:SCOTUS Lowered Exxon Valdez Punitive Award

[Anonymous Coward]

Justices do not campaign. They are appointed by someone that campaigned, go through a confirmation process by many people that campaigned, and join the Court. I hate to rain on your "Everyone's bought" theory.

Fixed it for you. The end result of all of that seems to be appointed stooges who agree with a given set of political views.

I never cease to be amazed that the supposedly nine most knowledge people on the laws of the nation can never actually agree on how those laws should be applied. It's like they're not seeking out facts, but national opinions. It's not like the supreme court hears cases where that need to determine who's lying to cover up a crime. Rather they mostly hear cases where both sides mostly agree on the crime, but differ on the legality of it.

Re:SCOTUS Lowered Exxon Valdez Punitive Award

[Anonymous Coward]

Justices do not campaign. They are appointed by someone that campaigned, go through a confirmation process by many people that campaigned, and join the Court. I hate to rain on your "Everyone's bought" theory.

Fixed it for you. The end result of all of that seems to be appointed stooges who agree with a given set of political views.

I never cease to be amazed that the supposedly nine most knowledge people on the laws of the nation can never actually agree on how those laws should be applied. It's like they're not seeking out facts, but national opinions. It's not like the supreme court hears cases where that need to determine who's lying to cover up a crime. Rather they mostly hear cases where both sides mostly agree on the crime, but differ on the legality of it.

Never actually agree? Au contraire: most Supreme Court decisions are unanimous: http://www.forbes.com/sites/danielfisher/2012/06/01/so-much-for-politics-more-than-half-of-supreme-court-decisions-unanimous/. It is simply the most controversial ones that get most of the press.

Most cases that go to the Supreme Court have settled the facts through a long and arduous appeals process. By the time it gets to the Supreme Court, most cases are subject more to legal corner cases than they are to whether enough evidence has been collected.

Re:SCOTUS Lowered Exxon Valdez Punitive Award

[AK Marc]

They do campaign. They "request" that their supporters recommend them for the post, pretending they didn't put themselves forward. They then try to prove to the administration that they will do their bidding, as well as pass the confirmation process.

They might not "officially" run for the office, but they *do* campaign for it.

Re:SCOTUS Lowered Exxon Valdez Punitive Award

[Theaetetus]

Yet the Supreme Court happily lower the punitive damages in the Exxon Valdez case. From http://www.marketwatch.com/story/us-supreme-court-orders-reduction-in-exxon-valdez-award

Jammie Thomas didn't face any punitive damages. Bear in mind that that's a legal term. You may believe that the award was punishing, but that's not the definition of "punitive damages". In her case, the award was 100% compensatory damages, and 0% punitive damages.

Wrong, wrong, wrong...

[Anonymous Coward]

$15.00 - It's the equivalent of 2 crummie albums, the music wasn't very good, and she had no one profited in the way the law was designed to penalize, back when music publishing was a print only business.

This can't really be what equal treatment under the law was desigend to accomplish.

Re:Wrong, wrong, wrong...

[Alwin Henseler]

Equal treatment under the law? But yes, absolutely! No matter who you are, what you believe, or where you're from, an equal amount of justice for every dollar you have. How's that not fair?

Re:Wrong, wrong, wrong...

[alexo]

Equal treatment under the law? But yes, absolutely! No matter who you are, what you believe, or where you're from, an equal amount of justice for every dollar you have. How's that not fair?

"The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich and the poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread."
-- Anatole France

Why depend on the RIAA to be humane?

[Anonymous Coward]

Fundraise the money and put it on a special account. Tell Jammie Thomas the money is either to sell her of the hook or for some childrens' health fund in the case, the RIAA will not try to rip her off.

What about some childrens' fund in connection with 9/11? So the RIAA either gets the money or a 9/11 fund will get the money. And it's not the RIAA who puts the money there, it's the funding crowd...

Hrmph

[dyingtolive]

Sensitive about impoverishing a woman, sure. I believe it.

I bet all they'll ask of her is a modest $200,000 and that she appear on television, making a public statement demeaning herself on behalf of the record companies. Fuckers should burn.

Re:Hrmph

[harlows_monkeys]

The RIAA offered to settle for around $2 to $3 per song shared, and she refused.

Re:Hrmph

[stinerman]

[citation needed]

Re:Hrmph

[viperidaenz]

on the assumption she shared each song 4000 times each? so between $192,000 and $288,000? That averages out to $240,000.

Re:Hrmph

[Anonymous Coward]

fuck you liar

Re:Hrmph

[LordLimecat]

...And perjured herself, and tampered with evidence....

Everyone, this is not the mascot you're looking for.

Re:Hrmph

[jxander]

Complete hypothetical here, but my guess :

She was probably offered to settle for $2-3 per song, as long as she pled guilty and covered all court costs, or even just her own court costs, which could easily be $100,000 or more, assuming lawyer was pro bono. Factor in travel costs, time lost from work (probably fired from her job), and the inability to coutersue or force the plaintiff to pay her court costs if they're found guilty ... suddenly settling for $2-3 per song doesn't seem all that appealing

/speculation

>

Re:Hrmph

[guises]

According to Ars, the average settlement offered by the RIAA is $3000 plus a written statement by the accused saying that they will not do it again (and probably a confession). That sounds reasonable next to the fines that Thomas-Rasset has been saddled with, but $3000 for $24 worth of music is still outrageous. And even if she was able to swallow that, the written statement that they demand would put you at the RIAA's mercy if they decided to come after you again. It's no wonder that she fought this.

Re:Hrmph

[clarkkent09]

Hardly, cause its so easy to look up the case anywhere including Wikipedia. She was offered $5K, then later as the case progressed, she was offered another chance to settle for $25K. Refused both. Oh and she didn't share 24 songs but 1,700. They focused on only 24 because it was easier and it was still enough to get significant damages.

Re:Hrmph

[dbIII]

They can't do that in my country. It's called "demanding money with menaces". Fines instead can only get charged by people that ultimately answer to the voters and not by any random self appointed gangster.

Re:Hrmph

[Anonymous Coward]

You can't say 1,700 unless you go to the work to prove 1,700. I bet if they could find 1,700 without too much more effort, they would have and simply charged her for the additional legal costs + some multiplicative factor, and it would have benefited them to do that, if they could.

Re:Hrmph

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, it should be a single-digit multiple of actual damages...something like 3 or 4....I thought the Supreme Court actually set that as a precedent at one point.

Re:Hrmph

[harlows_monkeys]

According to Ars, the average settlement offered by the RIAA is $3000 plus a written statement by the accused saying that they will not do it again (and probably a confession). That sounds reasonable next to the fines that Thomas-Rasset has been saddled with, but $3000 for $24 worth of music is still outrageous.

It was way more than $24 worth of music. This settlement offer was for all the songs she was sharing, which was around 1700 songs. When she refused and insisted that they take her to court, they only picked 24 songs to actually sue over, since there is no point whatsoever in suing over all 1700.

And even if she was able to swallow that, the written statement that they demand would put you at the RIAA's mercy if they decided to come after you again. It's no wonder that she fought this.

They would not have had grounds to come after again, assuming that she refrained from future file sharing.

Re:Hrmph

[harlows_monkeys]

Correct. Statutory damages are a minimum of $750 per song. (They can be lowered to $250 per song if the defendant proves that the infringement was innocent, which basically means proving that the defendant had no reason to believe that the material was copyrighted, which had no chance whatsoever of happening here). So, 24 songs times $750 per song is $18000. That's enough to make their point.

Thomas was a compete idiot for not taking the settlement. She knew she was guilty. She knew they had overwhelming proof. Since the minimum possible damages after losing the suit would be $18000 (hell, even if she could somehow get the lower innocent infringer rate of $250 song it would still be $6000 for 24 songs), she could only worsen her position by going to trial.

Re:Hrmph

[serviscope_minor]

Oh so that makes the injustice of this particular law all alright then! Good to know.

If she did those things, then criminal charges should be filed. The $200,000 is still beyond the bounds of a travesty of justice.

Re:Hrmph

[serviscope_minor]

When she refused and insisted that they take her to court, they only picked 24 songs to actually sue over, since there is no point whatsoever in suing over all 1700.

Or, they couldn't muster sufficient evidence.

Re:Hrmph

[Theaetetus]

Complete hypothetical here, but my guess :

She was probably offered to settle for $2-3 per song, as long as she pled guilty and covered all court costs, or even just her own court costs, which could easily be $100,000 or more, assuming lawyer was pro bono. Factor in travel costs, time lost from work (probably fired from her job), and the inability to coutersue or force the plaintiff to pay her court costs if they're found guilty ... suddenly settling for $2-3 per song doesn't seem all that appealing

/speculation

>

The total settlement offer was $3000. There wouldn't have been a court case, nor would she have needed even a pro bono lawyer.

Re:Hrmph

[Theaetetus]

According to Ars, the average settlement offered by the RIAA is $3000 plus a written statement by the accused saying that they will not do it again (and probably a confession). That sounds reasonable next to the fines that Thomas-Rasset has been saddled with, but $3000 for $24 worth of music is still outrageous.

Except that it's not $24 worth of music... It's the distribution rights for $24 songs, and that's a lot more expensive. With established music stores, like iTunes, it can be a percentage of gross sales with a predetermined lower limit, like $5,000. With new music stores, that lower limit can be much, much higher. Michael Jackson purchased distributions rights to a bunch of Beatles' songs for $11,875 each... which works out to be awfully close to the $220,000 for 24 songs here.

And even if she was able to swallow that, the written statement that they demand would put you at the RIAA's mercy if they decided to come after you again.

No, settlements are agreements that the dispute is waived. They couldn't come after her again... unless she did it again.

It's no wonder that she fought this.

She fought this because her attorney, Kiwi Camera, was handling her case and all costs for free because he's trying to make a name for himself in this field. He's a former student of Charles Neeson, who's the Harvard professor who is defending Tenenbaum in the other RIAA case.

Re:Hrmph

[LordLimecat]

Im not sure if you are aware, but it is NOT the job of the justice department to change the law-- unless it is unconstitutional, which copyright is very clearly not (since it is explicitly mentioned in the constitiution as one of congress's duties).

So, no, its not a travesty of justice when the justice department follows its duties as laid out in the constitution and correctly judges whether someone has violated a US law.

Re:Hrmph

[jxander]

Except that it's not $24 worth of music... It's the distribution rights for $24 songs, and that's a lot more expensive. With established music stores, like iTunes, it can be a percentage of gross sales with a predetermined lower limit, like $5,000. With new music stores, that lower limit can be much, much higher. Michael Jackson purchased distributions rights to a bunch of Beatles' songs for $11,875 each... which works out to be awfully close to the $220,000 for 24 songs here.

Why would she need the distribution rights to songs she isn't distributing?

Do we automatically assume that someone is distributing things they own? Do you have bacon in your refrigerator/freezer? Does your home meet USDA standards for food sales? Specifically the handling of meat products? Do you have oil in your car? Does your house have the proper disposal procedures in place for hazardous wastes? Or should the cops bust down your door with the assumption that you're pouring motor oil down the drain, and selling bacterially infected bacon simply because you have these things?

Unless you can prove that this person was selling these song (note: selling, i.e. profiting from the distribution of) the court doesn't have a leg to stand on, beyond the $24 she owes them for ownership ... at best. If anything, can they prove that she didn't own the CD, copy them from the CD to her computer ... then lose the disk? These things happen all the time. CDs get lost, scratched, stepped on. In this case, she might have admitted her wrong doing, but what about the next case, and the one after that. Onus is on the accuser (or "innocent until proven guilty" if you prefer.) If the RIAA wants to file suit against people for simply having music/movies/etc on their computer, they'd better have an airtight case.

Re:Hrmph

[serviscope_minor]

So, no, its not a travesty of justice when the justice department follows its duties as laid out in the constitution and correctly judges whether someone has violated a US law.

Someone prosecuted under an unJUST law is a travesty of JUSTice. Your pedantry about various departments of the government notwithstanding.

Re:Hrmph

[Theaetetus]

Except that it's not $24 worth of music... It's the distribution rights for $24 songs, and that's a lot more expensive. With established music stores, like iTunes, it can be a percentage of gross sales with a predetermined lower limit, like $5,000. With new music stores, that lower limit can be much, much higher. Michael Jackson purchased distributions rights to a bunch of Beatles' songs for $11,875 each... which works out to be awfully close to the $220,000 for 24 songs here.

Why would she need the distribution rights to songs she isn't distributing?

Because she was caught distributing, and because she admitted distributing in court?

Unless you can prove that this person was selling these song (note: selling, i.e. profiting from the distribution of) the court doesn't have a leg to stand on, beyond the $24 she owes them for ownership ... at best.

Consider that she stated under oath that she was distributing, then I think the court is allowed to take her at her word... Unless you're saying they don't have a leg to stand on and she committed criminal perjury? Frankly, I think the former works out better for her.

If anything, can they prove that she didn't own the CD, copy them from the CD to her computer ... then lose the disk? These things happen all the time. CDs get lost, scratched, stepped on. In this case, she might have admitted her wrong doing, but what about the next case, and the one after that. Onus is on the accuser (or "innocent until proven guilty" if you prefer.) If the RIAA wants to file suit against people for simply having music/movies/etc on their computer, they'd better have an airtight case.

They also caught her. Specifically, their agent downloaded a full copy of each of those songs from her. And before you do the "but an IP isn't linked to an individual," this was back in the day of Gnutella and account names, and they tied it to a specific user account which she created, with an identical name to other user accounts of hers.

And furthermore, once she was sued, Thomas destroyed her hard drive and then lied about it in court. She was pretty quickly found out. Destroying evidence is, itself, evidence that the jury or judge can use to determine guilt.

Re:Hrmph

[jxander]

Then this one person is an idiot. And she'll pay for her stupidity.

All other potential infringers can learn from her mistakes: Exercise your 5th amendment rights, don't admit to anything. Create a different username than your normal accounts. Use a different computer, if you can afford a cheapo, to actually host the files. And if the men in the black suits come a knocking at your door, don't try to destroy anything... just makes you look guilty. Claim that you own the original media and ripped everything yourself. Anything for which you do not have the original media, it was lost/stolen/destroyed. Anything that was downloaded from your computer was done without your permission/consent.

For a court to prove otherwise would be borderline impossible, and a few such cases (with counter-suits to cover all the emotional trauma and hardship inflicted by the RIAA) would likely cool their jets in a hurry.

Re:Hrmph

[LordLimecat]

Copyright is unjust? Oh, ok then. By what absolute standard are you making this claim, exactly, since both the founders of our country and its elected legislature over 200 years seem to disagree?

Re:Hrmph

[serviscope_minor]

Copyright is unjust? Oh, ok then. By what absolute standard are you making this claim, exactly, since both the founders of our country and its elected legislature over 200 years seem to disagree?

I love your black and white world. It's silly and entertaining.

$1e99 fine for minor non commercial copyright violation == unjust => all copyright is unjust.

Okaaaaaaaaaaaaay then.

Just register yourself as a Corporation and a Bank

[WillAffleckUW]

There, problem solved, no jail time or actual real fine.

Re:She refused a $5000 settlement offer.

[TemperedAlchemist]

Since when should the legal system be like playing roulette?

One of the few flaws

[Anonymous Coward]

Of our system that the founders created for us. The Supreme court should not be allowed to cherry pick cases that make it all the way to their bench. it gives them far too much power.

Re:One of the few flaws

[shentino]

Indeed. Making review discretionary is a blank check to the appeals courts to fuck up however they please.

Re:One of the few flaws

[Anonymous Coward]

Of our system that the founders created for us. The Supreme court should not be allowed to cherry pick cases that make it all the way to their bench. it gives them far too much power.

Whereas if they had to rule on every case, but had the option of ruling "the circuit judge got it right, move along, nothing to see here", they'd have less power?

Re:Just register yourself as a Corporation and a B

[Anonymous Coward]

You have a good point. There's a lot of offenses on the books that specifically have no jail time for corporations, just larger fines. Considering the fines for individuals tend to be so high that they go bankrupt, and going to jail tends to bankrupt people as well, incorporating yourself as protection from the state might not be such a bad idea! You'll still go bankrupt, but you get to start over a lot sooner.

She should move to Canada

[Anonymous Coward]

If she were in Canada she'd be liable for a maximum $5000 fine (which would absolve her of this and any other past offences), and the government has been encouraging judges to hand out the lowest possible fine ($100) for first time offenders.

Re:She should move to Canada

[ebno-10db]

That's why we're going to have to invade Canada (again).

Re:She should move to Canada

[fnj]

Do you think that will go better than the first time it was tried?

Re:She should move to Canada

[ebno-10db]

Yes, and better than the second time too. Now they're actually a country (or so they claim) and not just a chillier part of the British Empire.

The big concern is Quebec, which is thought to possess an enormous strategic reserve of maple syrup. The best strategy is to get the Québécois on our side by promising them independence from the anglophones.

Re:She should move to Canada

[dbIII]

The big concern is Quebec, which is thought to possess an enormous strategic reserve of maple syrup

That's not all they have:

poutine—the Quebec national dish, french fries soaked in cheese curds, and variously topped with bolognese, chili etc. A nap-inducing carbfest which comes out the other end like a wolf class U-boat leaving the Bremen docks.
http://www.crikey.com.au/2012/11/30/rundle-protests-corruption-and-poutine-in-sans-serif-montreal/?wpmp_switcher=mobile&wpmp_tp=3

Re:She should move to Canada

[Anonymous Coward]

Wouldn't you just import the US justice system thereby removing the benefits?

Oh, and you would also bring "freedom" right?

Re:She should move to Canada

[AttillaTheNun]

I think you'd best focus your efforts on North Korea. Now where were we.. oh yeah, they were testing nukes and intercontinental missiles and I believe you left off at imposing even harsher criticism and threatening to revoke their Mickey Mouse Club memberships.

Like Death for Bicycle Theft

[rmdingler]

When I was 6 years old, my father took me back to the store where I'd stolen a pack of gum with the money to pay the owner. After a rather sheepish apology that involved no eye contact from me at all, the proprietor accepted my dime and my remorse. My punishment was to return to the store after school and sweep for a week, every day after school. In the movies, that's how the story ends, with an errant youth learning a valuable lesson. In riaal life, his 11 year old son kicked the shit out of me every day but one... and that one day was the worst because I waited all day for the beating that never came.

Re:Like Death for Bicycle Theft

[zwarte piet]

Funny how these things can continue to hurt decades later.

Re:She refused extortion.

[Overzeetop]

Those were essentially extortion offers. Pay us or we'll break your financial knees.

Re:She refused extortion.

[Anonymous Coward]

In the same way that lawful imprisonment is like kidnapping, sure.

She broke the law.

What an insult

[jamessnell]

$200K+ for sharing 24 songs? Those profound douche-baggery. I'm so glad that newer methods are emerging to kill off the record label. This is an example of the industry that we call "The legal system", milking the life-force out of lady justice and then ripping her corpse apart and devouring it without a napkin. There's no measure of justice involved at all. Was there REALLY $222K in damage? Hell no, she helped advertise a brand, of sorts. What a disgusting farce. Glad I don't live in the states.

Dear editors,

[jxander]

Just a suggestion to help parse better, the phrase "7 year old Jammie Thomas case" should instead be "7 year old Jammie Thomas case"

Except with the actual link, and not just bold font... I'm lazy

This way, it's easier to recognize the CASE is seven years old, not Jammie Thomas.

Re:Dear editors,

[Anonymous Coward]

If it was a 7-year-old named Jammie Thomas who had a case, it would be "7 year old Jammie Thomas' case"

The absence of the possessive is sufficient to permit proper parsing.

Re:Dear editors,

[jxander]

The disastrous launch of SimCity took it's first major toll

I have a distrust of slashdot's apostrophe usage. In fact, I find your lack of lack of faith disturbing.

Re:Dear editors,

[viperidaenz]

I wouldn't put it last the RIAA to sue a 7 year old.
Their cronies try to do it in other countries

Re:Dear editors,

[mjr167]

I've been sitting here trying to figure out how a 7 year old kid was involved...

Re:Dear editors,

[eepok]

The 7 year old case of Jammie Thomas, a single-mother, who was fined...

This is not law, this is COMMERCE.

[Anonymous Coward]

And make no mistake, the swine who are members of the US Supreme Court know
who will line their pockets and they are the willing servants of those who will line
their pockets.

If you think that the courts system in the US is even remotely about "justice" you are a stupid
naive chump. The court system in the US is about money and power.

Re:This is not law, this is COMMERCE.

[v1]

And make no mistake, the swine who are members of the US Supreme Court know
who will line their pockets and they are the willing servants of those who will line
their pockets.

And just how are they getting their pockets lined? These aren't elected officials, there are no campaign contributions. They sit till they retire, and then a new one gets appointed.

Re:This is not law, this is COMMERCE.

[Anonymous Coward]

And make no mistake, the swine who are members of the US Supreme Court know
who will line their pockets and they are the willing servants of those who will line
their pockets.

And just how are they getting their pockets lined? These aren't elected officials, there are no campaign contributions. They sit till they retire, and then a new one gets appointed.

Apparently you are really so stupid and naive that you actually
believe the justices are beyond any corrupting influence simply
because they are appointed rather than elected. Your naiveté
is amusing but ultimately all you prove by such statements
as you made above is that you are a fool.

Re:She refused a $5000 settlement offer.

[TapeCutter]

When you're a single mum, $25K might as well be $25 billion. We don't get this crap in Oz since they can only sue for proven damages, they can't just pull numbers out of their arse and add or subtract zeros at their convienience.

Re:She refused extortion.

[ebno-10db]

She broke the law.

So do jaywalkers and people who drive 5 MPH over the posted limit. What's your point, that "breaking the law" justifies any fine or punishment? How about $1M for the next minor infraction you commit.

Jammie Thomas at Sundance

[Anonymous Coward]

[in deep movie-trailer announcer voice]

2014 [TWENTY- FOURTEEN!]

From Independent studios...

The lecherous record executive had no where to go.

They were out of bullets and the enemy was closing in.

All...Hope... was ... lost...

until!

A single mom on a paupers salary could be the break big-music was looking for...

Re:She refused extortion.

[vux984]

She broke the law.

And so what? So for a minor civil infraction that caused virtually no measured or measurable damage to anyone we should take away her house?

People break the law all the time. Breaking the law isn't carte blanche for the anyone to take everything you have, and then some.

For her situation, with 24 songs shared, first offense. Anything over $500 is WAY out of line relative to what she did. This sort of thing belongs in small claims court.

If she had shoplifted a CD (24 songs) from a Walmart and it was a first offense a $200,000+ fine would be utterly outrageous.

Re:She refused extortion.

[Anonymous Coward]

She was tried by a jury of her peers, who found the amount justified based on the circumstances and the law.

How is that unfair?

Re:She refused a $5000 settlement offer.

[Anonymous Coward]

Why would they subtract zeros?

That's not how you make a profit!

Re:She refused extortion.

[dyingtolive]

Most juries aren't really your peers. That's just how it reads on the tin to get you to quit your bitching.

Find me a juror in any of these high profile "...with a computer" cases that have come up lately that understands even something so trivial as the difference between TCP and UDP. Fuck, that even has one person on it who has/can demonstrate that.

Juries aren't picked based upon being someone's peer, they're a compromise between the two legal bodies on who is both, most gullible and not inclined to already have their mind's made up. That's all.

Re:She refused extortion.

[alen]

Who gives a shit between tcp and Udp in this case

She downloaded and distributed copyrighted songs. The distributed part is what got her

Forgiven debt/judgement is taxable in the US

[LordWoody]

Let's not forget that any forgiven debt is a taxable event in the US. It is seen as a gift and counts as "income". But I suppose it's still better than paying the full bill.

Re:Forgiven debt/judgement is taxable in the US

[Anonymous Coward]

Let's not forget that any forgiven debt is a taxable event in the US. It is seen as a gift and counts as "income". But I suppose it's still better than paying the full bill.

You can just never pay your bill, file bankruptcy, and generally don't have money, ever. Basically, you can live, just poorly. You can't take money from someone that doesn't have any.

On the other hand, if you can't pay your taxes, you can go to jail. IRS and all that.

Re:Forgiven debt/judgement is taxable in the US

[Krishnoid]

Can someone clarify whether this applies to any debt, or just ones involving a initial loan of money?

Re:Forgiven debt/judgement is taxable in the US

[FsG]

If a forgiven debt is income, then a debt being imposed upon you by a court is an expense. The two balance each other, and you don't owe any taxes.

Also, going through bankruptcy isn't a taxable event.

Re:Forgiven debt/judgement is taxable in the US

[LordWoody]

Bankruptcy is legal discharge of debt, not debtor forgiveness and not a taxable event. Debt imposed (by judgement) is not an inverse taxable event (deduction).

Debt imposed by legal judgement is punishment for doing wrong (violating the law or harming one civilly) and is not a tax deduction. Debt otherwise, was willfully opted into for services rendered or product and generally is not a tax deduction except for tax certain loophole exceptions.

The fed looks at forgiveness the same as having earned that (as extra) income.

Woody

Re:Forgiven debt/judgement is taxable in the US

[LordWoody]

I cannot quote tax code, but from my reading, any debt forgiveness. Do not however confuse bankruptcy with forgiveness. Bankruptcy is legal discharge of debt, not forgiveness. Your penance for bankruptcy is the credit record hit and high interest rates on future credit.

The debtor forgiving debt is entitled to a tax deduction for their loss (it essentially acts as negative income for the debtor), you consequently pay that back as tax on "other" income.

Re:Forgiven debt/judgement is taxable in the US

[LordWoody]

Here is the IRS stance: http://www.irs.gov/taxtopics/tc431.html It details tax forms you should get, what has to be reported and doesn't.

Re:Forgiven debt/judgement is taxable in the US

[FsG]

Paying a judgement against you, or settling a pending case, is absolutely a business expense. Companies can deduct or depreciate it, depending on the circumstances and the amount.

Or are you telling me that a company that made a million dollars in profit, and then paid out a judgement for a million dollars, leaving it with no money, would still owe taxes?

Re:Forgiven debt/judgement is taxable in the US

[LordWoody]

As you said, "depending on the circumstances"; but as I read IRS code and advisement, that is exactly what I am saying. Judgments are punishment for violation of criminal or civil law or failure to pay an legally obligated debt and thus are not "business expenses" in the "normal course" of business. Forgiveness of these debts is considered "income" and thus like all other income is taxable.

The IRS has a separate category for bankruptcy in which case the *discharged* (not the same as forgiven) debt is not a taxable event.

Re:She refused a $5000 settlement offer.

[LordLimecat]

Well, seeing as she not only was guilty, but also lied under oath and tampered with evidence, its kind of hard to get mad at the justice system for passing a "guilty" verdict.

It would be a problem if she had gotten off scott free, and yet somehow I suspect most of slashdot would be praising such a travesty if it happened.

lesson learned

[shentino]

Do not piss off the corporate elite or you will regret it.

Re:lesson learned

[shentino]

If someone breaks into your house and steals a hundred bucks out of your dresser drawer, does that give you a blank check to run him through with a pitchfork, roast him over an open fire, and sue him for a hundred grand?

I'm all for the guilty getting their just desserts but there is such a thing as taking advantage of a bad situation.

See also blowing out of proportion.

This is a blatant cash grab by the RIAA to take advantage of a bad law and is rather akin to giving someone the death penalty for a parking violation.

Re:lesson learned

[Anonymous Coward]

Not even close. Don't break the law then don't pay the price. Why is this first step always overlooked by people like you? Is there some kind of illogical way of seeing the world where people who violate the rights of others are seen as the victim?

Re:She refused extortion.

[shentino]

Her crime is pissing off the RIAA and trying to duke it out with the establishment.

Re:She refused a $5000 settlement offer.

[westlake]

Since when should the legal system be like playing roulette?

The odds are better in roulette.

There were three jury trials and verdicts against her and several rounds of appeal none of which ended well. Her performance on the stand was disastrous to her cause.

The appeal to the Supreme Court in such a case is melodramatic nonsense.

Fuck Yea

[Anonymous Coward]

It is about time these free loaders learn to respect the rights owners of the world. She probably does not even have enough cash to pay her lawfullly awarded fine. I say we bring back the debtors prisons so that these companies can finnallly be given the justice and retribution they deserve from wretches like Jammie Thomas.

You have no right to land, water, shelter, or now certain copyrighted / patented thoghts, as they are all owned by someone else, and you must pay rent to use them.

I love our legal system( it is the best system in the world, just ask a lawyer). It allows the strong to legally oppress the poor and indigent. Before the oppressors were considered despots. Now they usurp the rights of man with the full faith and conrfidence of the U.S. legal system.

    "Contrary to popular opinion, corporations do not want competition. They want monopoly and controll. Why fight when you can cooperate, and thereby provide half the product at twice the profit. "
- Warren Buffet

Re:Fuck Yea

[Anonymous Coward]

On the other hand, there were three juries full of folks who had no trouble handing out 6-7 figure judgments over 1-2 figures worth of songs. It's easy to dump on the lawyers and the corporates, but at least they're acting in their self-interest. There's no hope for reform if this is what passes for justice to the average person.

finbs

[Anonymous Coward]

"Look for them to ask her for far less than the $222,000" because why? they have a conscience or something.

$60K + RIAA slavery

[An dochasac]

They'll probably do what the MPAA did to retiree Fred Lawrence when he was sued over $600,000 for 4 movies his grandkid downloaded that the kid already owned! First knock the fine down to the point where it only bankrupts her (not several times over, only fair ya' know.) Then make her into RIAA's "community service" slave warning others not to do what she did.

Move to Oz.

[TapeCutter]

In Oz, there's no fine, they can only sue for provable damages. Most cases would not even pass the $50 minimum damages claim required for it to be heard by the small claims tribunal. MAFIAA lawyers can not harrass people with extortion notices (they have tried and been shot down before they could even lick the stamps). In short they have two choices, sue for provable damages, or shut the fuck up. Neither of which achieve their aims of sacring people into compliance with their bussiness model, consequently no individual has ever been fined or sued by an Australian court for file sharing.

In other words the Aussie justice system lives up to the Aussie cultural value of a "fair go", (at least as far as file sharing is concerned ;).

Re:She refused extortion.

[ebno-10db]

She was tried by a jury of her peers ...

So was Socrates. What's your point?

Our gov't

[Frank T. Lofaro Jr.]

The President is a great leader, most of the Senate is passably OK, the Supreme Court is messed up in some ways but sometimes does right (in both cases usually 5-4 decisions) and the House of Representatives is basically filled with jackasses, racists and thieves.

So a blanket kick them all out isn't what we need.

We need to intelligently VOTE. We did a great job picking Obama in 2008 and 2012 (although the fact that nearly half the country voted for that sociopath who ran against him in 2012 is disheartening), but why did we screw up the House so bad in 2010? What were we thinking? Were we thinking, or just watching Fox News?

We need a good Congress to fix the laws, since Supreme Court members hold their positions for life or close to it.

Unfortunately, the President can't do much without Congress...

Re:Our gov't

[clarkkent09]

My guys are great! Your guys are horrible! All we need to do is to keep my guys in and kick your guys out and everything will be perfect. Oh and people who disagree with me are crazy sociopaths, but those who agree who agree with me are just wonderful.
 
Your post is full of such unusual insights that nobody on either side has ever considered before. Are you by any chance a genius?

Re:Our gov't

[Sarius64]

P.S. We only put bad guys on the kill list. Maybe Rush Limbaugh, too.

Obama

[Frank T. Lofaro Jr.]

Stop blaming Obama for everything.

He inherited this mess and is doing the best he can, with Congress tying his hands.

Obama doesn't personally OK everything the Department of Justice does, he doesn't have the time to do that!

His time is spend trying to fix this country despite a Congress which is trying to block him for almost everything he is trying to accomplish, often due to hateful reasons that have no place in civilized society.

Obama has done a LOT to make gov't more accessible (White House Android app, We The People petitions, etc). Stop bashing Obama, remember Clinton signed the DMCA and Bush the 2nd signed the Patriot Act, etc, etc.

Re:Obama

[Anonymous Coward]

Obama has done a LOT to make gov't more accessible

Yeah, like unnecessarily closing the White House tours. "But the Republican sequester!" It's Obama's sequester, and plenty of people offered to donate money to keep the tours open. All denied because the tours being closed was too good for the press.

Re:Obama

[Sarius64]

Stop blaming Obama for everything.

He inherited this mess and is doing the best he can, with Congress tying his hands.

Obama doesn't personally OK everything the Department of Justice does, he doesn't have the time to do that!

His time is spend trying to fix this country despite a Congress which is trying to block him for almost everything he is trying to accomplish, often due to hateful reasons that have no place in civilized society.

Obama has done a LOT to make gov't more accessible (White House Android app, We The People petitions, etc). Stop bashing Obama, remember Clinton signed the DMCA and Bush the 2nd signed the Patriot Act, etc, etc.

So many hours of rebuttal required there, Frank. Let's choose just one.

President Obama, Congress passes bill to extend Patriot Act despite Sen. Rand Paul delay

Obama Signs Last-Minute Patriot Act Extension

Obama Takes Wrong Turn on Civil Liberties, Adopting Worse Patriot Act Stance Than GOP

But in the administration's defense, I'm sure you got your Obama phone, Frank.

Re:She refused extortion.

[fnj]

She broke the law.

And Jewish shop owners in Nazi Germany broke the law by being Jewish. And they paid the penalty. First their shops were confiscated, then the "lawful government" grew emboldened and their lives were confiscated.

You seem to look on the law as your master. I believe it is supposed to be the people's servant.

Anyone else feel this way?

[Anonymous Coward]

I was once a law and copywright-abiding citizen, but all the RIAA's crusade has done is piss me off the the point that I will no longer pay for content, instead I now search for increasingly inventive ways to avoid giving these assholes my hard-earned money.

Those guys in Sweden have it right: The sharing of information is a natural right and a legitimate religion.

Re:Just register yourself as a Corporation and a B

[fnj]

There, problem solved, no jail time or actual real fine.

I think you know it is not as easy as that. It's an insiders' club. If you incorporate without playing the game by the old boys' rules, they have plenty of clauses to pierce the corporate veil and nail you good. My favorite one is that being an officer of a corporation does not protect you from individual liability due to fraud. Fraud is a code word for "not playing the game by the old boys' rules".

look for the money

[Anonymous Coward]

y'all might want to check up on the silent one's wife's job, she's a right-wing lobbyist, so Exxon and co can pour all the cash into her pockets, (and since they're married, their pockets), they want.

And of course she get's to talk to her husband whenever she wants, completely off any the record, nobody is permitted to ask her questions about it.

speeding is actually a crime

[Anonymous Coward]

Driving 5 MPH over the law is punishable by up to a year in jail.

Re:She refused a $5000 settlement offer.

[Anonymous Coward]

lying under oath and tampering with evidence are separate crimes, and should have been considered separately.

Re:She refused extortion.

[clarkkent09]

Not saying that her punishment isn't excessive but your shoplifting analogy is wrong. Stealing a CD that costs $10 causes $10 worth of damages - easy. Her crime was distributing the songs and working out the true damages in lost sales is much harder.

Sure...

[Anonymous Coward]

As long as we can all agree that what you do for a living is worth nothing too. It's amazing that people who expect to be payed a fair wage for their work (so they can afford things like food, shelter, transportation, etc) think everybody else should work for free. Some moron who "shares" a bit of music with the world has not just deprived the artist of on $0.99 sale; he has possibly deprived that artist of a million such sales (all the sales that might have happened if there were no internet sharing ability and people still had to buy the music they listen to).

I'm not in the music/arts business and I think that much of what the big media companies do is rather vile... BUT that does not change the fact that a bunch of hippie freeloaders on the web are working hard to re-define their preferred crime (theft) into some noble cause. I have observed that none of these people are willing to prove consistency by insisting that everybody steal his or her work output.... and have the thieves say "it's not theft... we're good people who are sharing..." and "that stuff you make wants to be free..."

There are too many people on the internet who act like 6 year olds... they think everything should be "free".... because, after-all, everything in their life is free... (6 year olds are too young and self-absorbed to realize their parents are working their butts off to provide all that "free" stuff).

Adults have grown up and are mature enough to know that a living creature must work every day to provide itself and its offspring with things like food and shelter and safety... animals do this in a straight-forward way and it takes all their time.... and that humans have developed a really clever way to do this: we each specialize in providing a surplus of something which others want or need (and which we prefer to produce or are very good at producing) and trading the surplus for the other things that we need (but which we are unable/unwilling to produce as well as somebody else can). As our civilization advanced, we optimized this even farther by creating tokens (money) to exchange (in place of bartering with our actual products/services). I'm not good at making music but I like to listen to it... so I give some tokens to a musician (who is good at making music and likes to do it) so he will give me some music he made. There is a guy down the street who wants what I make, so he gives me some of his tokens for my stuff... and the musician wants stuff that guy makes, so the musician gives him some tokens for that stuff. This system is fair and it's honest and it's far better than the natural system animals use where one creature kills another and eats him and takes his stuff...

Re:Sure...

[ultrasawblade]

Copying a song is not theft. Theft means a person is deprived of the object that is stolen. Copying does not deprive the original person, or original creator of the song anything.

Copying a song does not equal a lost sale. You do not know if a person would have bought a song until you have the money in your hand. An artist is arrogant and wishfully thinking when saying a each download equals a lost sale.

Refusing to give someone money because they did something they consider work is not punishment, is not harsh, is not harming them, and is not wrong. There are millions of people each day, many much more insanely productive than I, that I don't give money to. There are several concerts going on in my city each weekend. Am I stealing from these artists because I won't give them money, just because they did work? Performance of a work itself in and of itself is not an automatic right to receive payment.

Now, if I agree specifically beforehand that the artist is to do work FOR me, and then I don't pay him, then I see the wrong. Just like if I go to work today, do the work I'm expected and have agreed to beforehand, and don't receive payment, then that's wrong.

Fuck the supreme court

[Anonymous Coward]

They don't represent the people anymore. Let's set up a parallel court.

Re:She refused extortion.

[vux984]

Not saying that her punishment isn't excessive but your shoplifting analogy is wrong.

My shoplifting analogy is one of excessive punishment relative to a minor crime. If we agree the punishment is excessive relative to the crime committed then it validates the analogy.

Stealing a CD that costs $10 causes $10 worth of damages - easy.

You mean the CD that cost Walmart $3.50? That was on sale yesterday for $7, but today is $10. And since the individual was caught and the merchandise recovered unopened and undamaged then is it $0? But yes, arriving at some sort of measurement of reasonable damages is pretty easy with physical goods.

Her crime was distributing the songs and working out the true damages in lost sales is much harder.

Much harder yes. But its pretty easy to dispute the 200k+ amount. If every file sharer on the internet represented a quarter million in losses to the RIAA... then the recording industry would have been a smoking crater a decade ago.

I mean Kazaa alone represented something like 60 million users. 60 million users x 200k/user = 12 Trillion dollars. Trillion. With a T. Its ridiculous.

Re:Just register yourself as a Corporation and a B

[camperdave]

Just register yourself as a Corporation and a Bank

Hmm... How difficult is it to register as a "library"?

Re:She refused extortion.

[camperdave]

Well, wouldn't they have to prove lost sales to begin with? Then, since she likely wasn't the only one torrenting the files at the time, wouldn't the damages (if any) have to be divided amongst all of the torrenters?

The worst possible case.

[MarkvW]

The RIAA did a really good job of picking this case to fight. Jammie Thomas is really an unattractive defendant because of her lies.

you need a more adult view of the world

[Anonymous Coward]

And that crude oil came from where exactly???? Oh, yeah... it was a natural substance that occurred in nature and was extracted from nature... like the oil that bubbles-up off the coast of CA all the time and washes-up as little blobs of tar on the beaches near Santa Barbara. Oil spills are bad, but it gets annoying to see people use them politically (for example by childishly pretending that anybody who does not say/do the "right" thing about oil is "corrupt") and pretend that oil is some synthetic toxin dumped by evil man into a pristine mother nature.... but I digress...

Your comment, like many in this thread, shows a disturbing lack of understanding both of the ROLE of the supreme court and also what its actions in any particular case MEAN. First, the role of the supreme court is generally to resolve disputes in the lower courts (where a court in the 4th circuit and a court in the 9th circuit both rule differently on very similar matters of law). in these situations, the Supreme Court will take a case, apply the Constitution as they see it, and issue a ruling for the lower courts to use as precedent in future related cases; this is why people over-simplify the role of SCOTUS to be "final arbiter" or "last appeal"...but that's NOT what's really going on. When the SCOTUS lets a ruling stand, it is often NOT saying it agrees with the outcome, but RATHER, that it wants to let the lower courts encounter more cases like the one at issue and further develop the legal arguments... sometimes the case that has been sent up to them is clouded by lots of other issues that make it a bad candidate for a SCOTUS ruling (and thus would result in a bigger-mess if its claims or conclusions get stamped with a SCOTUS stamp of approval or rejection) History is FULL of cases where lower courts ruled in bad ways and the SCOTUS let those rulings stand for years until they eventually took a related case, drew-in issues from the earlier cases to inform their thinking, and THEN made a ruling in the case that they finally took (which does not retroactively change the rulings in the cases they did not take). The SCOTUS does NOT exist to provide justice to a particular individual, but rather, to establish a stable legal system for the society as a whole.... that does not always happen quickly, and it does not always help every individual along the way.

The Thomas case is a bad one, and it's probably good for the log-run that SCOTUS did not use it as an instrument; you have a bad client who intentionally did wrong and was dishonest about it... a much-better instrument for a ruling on limiting damages might be a case with an innocent kid who did not understand the harm he/she might have been causing. Some future case might pull-in material from the lower-court rulings in the Thomas case. It could well be that the best case for limiting damages might have nothing to do with the internet or with "file sharing" (which is theft and probably should be illegal and severely punished) Basic economics says that when there's plenty of something, its value goes down... so when a thief "shares" millions of copies of a piece of music or a movie, he causes some number (greater than zero, but less than the number of downloads) of sales to not happen...and all the worse because a song, once "shared" on the internet, can never be recalled so the damages will keep accumulating over the years with absolutely no end... and no amount of pretending that "file sharers" are actually "free advertising" erases this. As a result, SCOTUS might have ended-up using a combination of the Thomas case facts AND some economics input and ended-up ruling that "file sharers" should be liable for millions of dollars in losses per song.

Jammie Thomas was bad for the internet and, had the SCOTUS run with her case, typical Slashdotters who seem to fawn over this lady might have encountered a VERY unhappy end that would have become the "law-of-the-land"...

Thieves are lucky if the victim offers them mercy

[Anonymous Coward]

She decided to take nearly 2K pieces of somebody's music and give a copy to each and every person on Earth... it's astonishing that the people who were the only ones with the legal right to make those copies (and who were the only ones with the right to either [a] make money on the sale of, or [b] get good karma from the donation of, each copy) offered her a chance to avoid jail for less than a Billion dollars (2K songs * $0.99 * 0.5million downloads) and that's not counting the future losses (the copies she uploaded are going to echo around the net forever) and the lost interest/investment income from the money that would have been made on the sales that would have happened, etc.

If she had taken the results of your work, and provided it to anybody who wanted it (so that nobody needed to pay YOU for your efforts) would YOU have been as charitable as the music industry was??? would YOU have been as charitable as you seem to think they should have been???

Bankruptsy

[flyingfsck]

That is what bankruptsy law is for. It will redress the ridiculous fine. "You cannot get blood from a stone", is actually a well known legal principle.

Re:Bankruptsy

[wonkey_monkey]

That is what bankruptsy law is for.

No, it isn't.

Re:Bankruptsy

[Anonymous Coward]

George W. Bush changed bankruptcy law in 2004 and added civil copyright fines to the list of debt you cannot go bankrupt against.

Re:Just register yourself as a Corporation and a B

[flyingfsck]

Yup, then she would have been bailed out by the gullable American tax payers.

Re:She refused extortion.

[flyingfsck]

In a Rechtstaat (Germany), the law is the master. In a Free State, the people are the masters. Some US states are Free States, but not many. "Live free or die" is the slogan of New Hampshire.

Re:She refused extortion.

[TemperedAlchemist]

So did the RIAA. Extortion is illegal. You're not permitted to hold someone's crime over their heads.

And this is a clear violation of the eighth amendment. So the supreme court broke the law by ignoring the case, the people who sentenced her broke the law by actually breaking the eighth amendment.

In fact, merely enforcing this penalty is unconstitutional. She should have grounds to sue the US government. But she can't. Because he government is made of people who can't -- or won't -- see huge flaw in this system. Maybe they're scared of breaking things, maybe it's political, or maybe they don't care one way or another.

Either way the RIAA should face the music for extortion, but they won't. Hundreds of people do accept these ridiculous settlement agreements, and of those that refuse, the RIAA takes the one least able to put a fight and tries to make an example out of them. It's eerily wicked, like some legal mafia.

What was taken?

[Anonymous Coward]

n/t

Re:What was taken?

[czth]

Mod parent up - nothing at all is taken when a copy is made.

And the fine goes to the court, not plaintiff

[Anonymous Coward]

So doubly bullshit on the GP.

The right was given to them, then they reneged

[Anonymous Coward]

the right, assuming you're USian, was for 14 years and a 14 year extension, with a plain copy registered for library use and copy, didn't cover sheet music, didn't cover airplay, didn't cover source code.

But they reneged on the deal.

The content creators agreed to put their work in the public domain SO we would agree not to infringe on their rights for the limited time before that happens.

They broke that deal.

Do all us graybeards a favor and fill in the ???

[jonatha]

"My wife is under 30 ... I am older"

1. I am older
2. ???
3. My wife is under 30
4. Profit!!

Hunger Strike

[ThatsNotPudding]

Unless the bill is the retail face value of one of each of the songs she 'stole', with all legal bills paid: hunger strike with daily press conferences.

$10,000 is ok, just not per song

[Anonymous Coward]

We all love car analogies, so, I liken this to getting a speeding ticket for hundreds of thousands of dollars. You were caught speeding, but you were speeding over the course of 10 miles, that's (to pick an arbitrary number) 10,000 units of enforcement. You broke the law ten thousand times and were caught once. Stacking on these multiple infringements for a single case makes everything obscene. Drinking a six pack of beer while under age, that six crimes right there, you're a repeat offender and off to jail you go.

The Thomas case is rather atypical

[Zontar_Thing_From_Ve]

For those who don't know, I'd like to point out that the Jammie Thomas case is quite atypical.

1) The whole case is about her making the downloaded files available through some sort of file sharing software. While this actually is typical, it's important to consider in relation to my following points.
2) In all of her trials, she came across as very unsympathetic. Keep in mind that probably nobody on the jury has an IT background. She came across as someone who knew what she was doing and felt like she was above the law. This is a big reason for the massive judgements against her.
3) She basically denied the charges against her on the stand as her only defense and the prosecutors were easily able to show that the PC sharing the files belonged to her.
4) She is arrogant beyond belief and maybe, just maybe, a bit deranged. It never for even a minute seemed to occur to her that any outcome other than a victory for her was ever possible. This is just not rational.
5) Her legal help for all trials has been bottom of the barrel. In one of her trials, she got a bunch of law school students to defend her for free and one of them told the press prior to the trial that the case would be a slam dunk (or similar words) to win. Her student lawyers learned that practicing law for real is quite a bit harder than it seems on TV and in class.

All I can say is that if you were going to pick someone to stand up to the RIAA for the little guy, she would be your last choice to be that person.

Re:The Thomas case is rather atypical

[Anonymous Coward]

Cool story, bro, but law school students are not allowed to argue cases in open court. To do that requires you to actually be an attorney, and member of the Bar.

No Bar membership, no arguing at trial.

What was he smoking?

[Anonymous Coward]

Was the unamed journalist smoking cr@ck? The RIAA sensitive? This will merely embolden the RIAA and they will expect every penny plus interest and late fees from this woman.

Re:Do all us graybeards a favor and fill in the ??

[arth1]

1. I am older
2. ???
3. My wife is under 30
4. Profit!!

No, there's no profit in that. Expenses, god, yes.
The larger the age difference, the more expenses.

If nothing else because a well-given present might be needed to cut through the awkward moments where communication breaks down ("Dave Lambert? Did he play with Skrillex?").
And the price of going to restaurants, because young women can't and/or won't cook.

=

Re:She refused extortion.

[Theaetetus]

She broke the law.

And so what? So for a minor civil infraction that caused virtually no measured or measurable damage to anyone we should take away her house?

People break the law all the time. Breaking the law isn't carte blanche for the anyone to take everything you have, and then some.

For her situation, with 24 songs shared, first offense. Anything over $500 is WAY out of line relative to what she did. This sort of thing belongs in small claims court.

If she had shoplifted a CD (24 songs) from a Walmart and it was a first offense a $200,000+ fine would be utterly outrageous.

But if she made millions of copies of a CD and gave them out for free outside of that Walmart, destroying their ability to sell it, then it starts looking more reasonable. Particularly if someone is standing next to her helping her distribute those CDs while showing advertising and making money off of all the visitors.

This case was never about downloading a single copy of a song, which is why that comparison has never been successful. This case was about uploading to others, and distribution rights are a lot more expensive than $1.

Re:Do all us graybeards a favor and fill in the ??

[Anonymous Coward]

Come on, that's an easy one. That particular ??? was filled in thousands of years ago...

Re:She refused extortion.

[vux984]

But if she made millions of copies of a CD and gave them out for free outside of that Walmart, destroying their ability to sell it, then it starts looking more reasonable.

Sure, except she didn't do that. She didn't make millions of copies. And the impact she had on the global marketplace for those songs is relatively trivial.

Particularly if someone is standing next to her helping her distribute those CDs while showing advertising and making money off of all the visitors.

So charge that person. Which they did. And nobody really batted an eye when the companies that were clearly doing more than releasing innocuous software that "could" be used to share songs were sued into oblivion.

This case was never about downloading a single copy of a song, which is why that comparison has never been successful. This case was about uploading to others, and distribution rights are a lot more expensive than $1.

That comparison is about *severity of the crime* and *damage done*; it's not an attempt to directly equate shoplifting with music sharing. I could, as easily, compare it to jay-walking, letting your parking meter expire, or having more than X people gathered in a park without a permit. $200,000 fines for stuff like that is wrong.

Now if you really want to make it about the value of "distribution rights" then you should need to show that other legitimate distribution channels didn't purchase distribution rights as a result. Did Apple/itunes or Amazon or the Cable music channel decide not to acquire distribution rights because of Jammie? Was Jammie even a factor? Did Jammie's actions, by themselves, impact the rights owners ability to negotatiate? Did they have to accept less money due to Jammie? Don't be ridiculous.

Maybe in some small part yes, as Jammie was part of much larger aggregate file sharing phenomena. So go ahead and calculate how much damage filesharing did to the industry, and then divide it by about 100 million to put it in the ballpark of Jammie's portion.

Otherwise all it amounts to is units of lost sales. How many lost sales did Jammie cause? Only a halfwit would argue that Jammie is personally responsible for a quarter million in lost sales. If every Kazaa user did 200k+ in damages, then the recording industry lost 12 trillion dollars.

That doesn't pass the smell test. It doesn't matter whether you look at is as "distribution rights" or not, Jammie and people like her simply did not do that much damage.

U.S. Privatization of Prisons

[AttillaTheNun]

I just learned recently that there is a significant movement towards privatization of penal institutions in the U.S., something I had no idea existed, as it seems to be such an obvious conflict of interest.
This gives a whole new perspective on the motivations behind the police-state antics in that country and their Wars on Drugs, Pirates and Personal Freedoms..

It's a scary thought - on one hand there are cartel-like corporations lobbying for laws to punish individuals, no matter how petty the infraction, while on the other there are corporations who profit based on the number of institutionalized convicts. They need laws in place and enforcement to ensure a steady flow of fresh meet. I wouldn't be surprised if the executives frequent the same yacht and golf clubs.

Re:She refused extortion.

[Theaetetus]

But if she made millions of copies of a CD and gave them out for free outside of that Walmart, destroying their ability to sell it, then it starts looking more reasonable.

Sure, except she didn't do that. She didn't make millions of copies. And the impact she had on the global marketplace for those songs is relatively trivial.

Except that the burden of proof is on her, since she destroyed her hard drives and lied to the court about it. If she has logs showing that she didn't distribute lots of copies, then she could use those to mitigate the statutory damage award... but she doesn't. So, we presume that yes, she did distribute millions of copies and had a huge impact on the global marketplace.

Particularly if someone is standing next to her helping her distribute those CDs while showing advertising and making money off of all the visitors.

So charge that person. Which they did. And nobody really batted an eye when the companies that were clearly doing more than releasing innocuous software that "could" be used to share songs were sued into oblivion.

I remember much gnashing of teeth over the Napster and Grokster decisions. But nonetheless, she's a willing participant - why not charge her too? There's nothing that says you can only charge one person in any joint venture.

This case was never about downloading a single copy of a song, which is why that comparison has never been successful. This case was about uploading to others, and distribution rights are a lot more expensive than $1.

That comparison is about *severity of the crime* and *damage done*; it's not an attempt to directly equate shoplifting with music sharing. I could, as easily, compare it to jay-walking, letting your parking meter expire, or having more than X people gathered in a park without a permit. $200,000 fines for stuff like that is wrong.

Why not compare it to borrowing a bunch of CDs from friends and ripping them, and then setting up a music store where people can visit with their iPods or Zunes or whathaveyou and plug in to make copies of your record catalog, and you never pay royalties to the record distributors? Other than the brick and mortar aspect, what she did was exactly the same.

Now if you really want to make it about the value of "distribution rights" then you should need to show that other legitimate distribution channels didn't purchase distribution rights as a result. Did Apple/itunes or Amazon or the Cable music channel decide not to acquire distribution rights because of Jammie? Was Jammie even a factor? Did Jammie's actions, by themselves, impact the rights owners ability to negotatiate? Did they have to accept less money due to Jammie? Don't be ridiculous.

Actually, none of those seem ridiculous. Why should Apple pay high royalties if anyone can freely download the song via Gnutella? Maybe it's a factor in them declining a specific royalty proposal. It certainly makes economic sense.

Maybe in some small part yes, as Jammie was part of much larger aggregate file sharing phenomena. So go ahead and calculate how much damage filesharing did to the industry, and then divide it by about 100 million to put it in the ballpark of Jammie's portion.

Otherwise all it amounts to is units of lost sales. How many lost sales did Jammie cause? Only a halfwit would argue that Jammie is personally responsible for a quarter million in lost sales. If every Kazaa user did 200k+ in damages, then the recording industry lost 12 trillion dollars.

That doesn't pass the smell test. It doesn't matter whether you look at is as "distribution rights" or not, Jammie and people like her simply did not do that much damage.

Again, the burden of proof here falls on Jammie: she can mitigate the statutory damage award by showing that actual damages were much lower. She failed to even attempt to do that, beyond the mere $24 claim, which was unpersuasive for reasons which you seem to agree with, even if you're disagreeing over whether $222,000 is sane or not.

Re:Do all us graybeards a favor and fill in the ??

[zwarte piet]

My wife is 36 and I'm 43 so there's a prime number between us.

Re:She refused extortion.

[vux984]

Except that the burden of proof is on her, since she destroyed her hard drives and lied to the court about it.

That's not helping her case, and maybe she should be charged with evidence tampering and perjury (and be punished or fined by the state), but that doesn't impact the damages that were actually done, and the music industry shouldn't be paid grossly more money then she damaged them as a result.

Also, no, the burden of proof to establish damages should be on the prosecution. This whole 'statutory damages' is a legal loophole that is being abused because it is grossly disproportionate to the actual damages.

If she has logs showing that she didn't distribute lots of copies,

The computer, even if it had been turned over, would not have established how many copies were distributed.

So, we presume that yes, she did distribute millions of copies and had a huge impact on the global marketplace.

Extraordinary claims like that require extraordinary evidence. The fact that she can't produce "log files" to disprove it doesn't scratch the surface of what it would take to establish a claim like that.

Why not compare it to borrowing a bunch of CDs from friends and ripping them, and then setting up a music store where people can visit with their iPods or Zunes or whathaveyou and plug in to make copies of your record catalog, and you never pay royalties to the record distributors?

She didn't "set up a music store". She installed Kazaa with its default settings to download some songs. Comparing it to "setting up a music store" is absurd. If let some have some chips and dip at a picnic I am not "setting up a restuarant".

Other than the brick and mortar aspect, what she did was exactly the same.

Other than the fact that running kazaa is not the same as opening a music store.

Moreover, what would we learn by comparing it to that? Perhaps if someone tried that we would find that like Jammie's Kazaa install, that doing something like that doesn't have any significant impact on the global marketplace after all and then what?

Back in university, people did a variety of similar things, like leaving an old computer with winamp installed and some ripped music in a student common area for anyone to use. Anyone who had access to the computer (and it was pretty much wide open to the public, could have copied files off, and I'm sure some did.) others just listened to the music while they were in the common room.

Turns out it did not single handedly destroy the music industry, and I would be just as outraged if whoever set that computer up was hung out to dry for a quarter million dollars in imaginary "damages" too. (For the record, no, they didn't "set up a music store" either.)

Actually, none of those seem ridiculous.

Yes, they are, and when extrapolated out to the larger network of fileshares even the judges called it absurd.

(In the case against limewire the plaintiffs initially claimed for statutory damages in a range from 400 Billion to 75 Trillion based on users x works x statutory infringement x wilful infringment.

The judge wrote:

"Plaintiffs are suggesting an award that is more money than the entire music recording industry has made since Edison's invention of the phonograph in 1877,"

That's more than the GDP of the entire world. The judge went on to called this result "absurd".

Even the low end of the range: 400 billion is widely been debunked and is considered grossly inflated.

Why should Apple pay high royalties if anyone can freely download the song via Gnutella? Maybe it's a factor in them declining a specific royalty proposal. It certainly makes economic sense.

Then they should have evidence of that. Do they? Any? Why do we need to speculate about the damage she did if they have tangible evidence of actual damage? Perhaps, because they don't have any?

Again, the burden of proof here falls

Funny Strange, Not Funny Ha-Ha

[rmdingler]

Indeed. We are, by and large, the grand sum of our experiences and our genetic predispositions. I don't subscribe to arguing nature versus nurture, so much as I believe what we are is a spectacularly random combination of the two. There is certainly the possibility that these things can continue to help decades later, too.

Pessimism and Optimism -- Just Keep Going On

[Paul Fernhout]

Xest makes some good points about reasons to be more optimistic. However, I've certainly been pessimistic about this myself in the past. Here is an excerpt from a satire I wrote about this and posted to slashdot over a decade ago in relation to an article: "MPAA to Senate: Plug the Analog Hole!" after sending a copy of the US Department of Justice who had asked for comments (I also sent a copy to Richard Stallman who said it made him laugh):
http://www.pdfernhout.net/microslaw.html
"My fellow Americans. There has been some recent talk of free law by the General Public Lawyers (the GPL) who we all know hold un-American views. I speak to you today from the Oval Office in the White House to assure you how much better off you are now that all law is proprietary. The value of proprietary law should be obvious. Software is essentially just a form of law governing how computers operate, and all software and media content has long been privatized to great economic success. ... [Inaudible shouted question] Prisons? There are only a million Americans behind bars for copyright infringement so far. No one complained about the million plus non-violent drug offenders we've had there for years. No one complained about the million plus terrorists we've got there now, thanks in no small part to a patriotic Supreme Court which after being privatized upheld that anyone who criticizes government policy in public or private is a criminal terrorist. Oops, I shouldn't have said that, as those terrorists aren't technically criminals or subject to the due process of law are they? Well it's true these days you go to prison if you complain about the drug war, or the war on terrorism, or the war on infringers of copyrights and software patents -- so don't complain! [nervous audience laughter] After all, without security, what is the good of American Freedoms? Benjamin Franklin himself said it best, those who don't have security will trade in their freedoms. ..."

Sad it is all becoming a little too true, even with some progress on the drug war front.

As I've realized, the USSR had to guard its borders to keep people from escaping that often dysfunctional society -- and we've all been told that showed how bad a country they were. But the USA needs to guard its medicine cabinets instead to keep people from escaping -- what does that say about the USA?

Some books related to your points:

"War is a racket" on the profit-oriented ("fascistic") military-industrial complex
http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/warisaracket.html

"Mistakes Were Made, But Not By Me" on cognitive dissonance
http://www.amazon.com/Mistakes-Were-Made-But-Not/dp/0156033909

In one of Freeman Dyson's books, like "Infinite in All Directions" he talks about the coming conflicts between government and individuals wanting to redefine themselves biologically, where drug use is just a first example of a more general issue.

On the accelerating problem of addiction to "supernormal stimuli", which is a much more general issue than "drugs":
http://www.amazon.com/Supernormal-Stimuli-Overran-Evolutionary-Purpose/dp/B0057DC3VY
http://www.drfuhrman.com/library/article16.aspx
http://www.paulgraham.com/addiction.html

By the way, some health ideas to look into, including vitamin D deficiency and eating more vegetables and omega-3s, which can help in avoiding depression:
http://www.changemakers.com/discussions/discussion-493#comment-38823

When all else fails, somethign from Howard Zinn: